The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday released a 111-page transcript of its closed-door interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the document shows she repeatedly declined to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein files, pointing instead to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as the man who ran the investigation.

Democrats had already flagged the pattern. They told reporters after the roughly four-hour session that Bondi invoked Blanche at least 30 times. Now the full transcript confirms the scope of her deflections, and the combative role played by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who accompanied Bondi and repeatedly shut down questions about any discussions Bondi may have had with the White House.

The result is a document that raises as many questions as it answers. And for Americans who expected the Epstein files to deliver clarity, the transcript offers something closer to a jurisdictional shell game, with Bondi saying she wasn't the one making the calls, Dhillon saying the questions weren't allowed, and the committee left holding a record full of refusals.

How the interview came together, and nearly didn't

Bondi had been subpoenaed to sit for a deposition. Rep. Nancy Mace, the South Carolina Republican, first pushed the move that compelled the testimony. But after an arrangement with committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), Bondi instead sat for a transcribed interview, not a deposition, and not video recorded.

That distinction mattered. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) pressed the point during the session, asking Bondi directly whether she considered her appearance voluntary or responsive to the subpoena.

"For the record, in your opinion, the sit-down is not to comply with that subpoena, but it's a voluntary interview having nothing to do with the subpoena issued by the committee?"

The question cut to the heart of Bondi's legal exposure. If the interview was voluntary, the subpoena remained technically unmet. Dhillon's own words reinforced that framing.

"We don't even need to formally assert the privilege in this context given the voluntary nature of these proceedings. So we're just going to refuse to provide answers about conversations with the President or his advisers."

That argument gave the Justice Department a convenient two-step: Bondi showed up, but the subpoena's teeth were pulled. And executive privilege was invoked without being formally asserted, a legal gray zone that let Dhillon block questions without triggering the procedural consequences of a formal privilege claim.

The earlier standoff over Bondi's deposition had already generated friction between Democrats and the former attorney general. The transcript release adds a new chapter to that fight.

Bondi's 30-plus references to Blanche

On question after question, investigative leads provided by Epstein's victims, redaction guidance, the Justice Department memo declaring Epstein had no client list, Bondi directed committee members to Blanche and FBI Director Patel.

"You'd have to ask Deputy Attorney General, now-Acting Attorney General Blanche and Director Patel."

She stated plainly that Blanche had been managing the entire Epstein investigation. But when Democrats tried to frame that as blame-shifting, Bondi pushed back hard.

"That is 100 percent incorrect. Todd Blanche is one of the most highly ethical individuals I know, and I think he is making an incredible Acting Attorney General. And he managed this investigation, and it was a Herculean task, with very little error. And Todd did an excellent job, in my opinion, and is doing an excellent job as our Attorney General. I'm not blaming anything on Todd."

That defense was emphatic. But it also confirmed the central point: Bondi was not the decision-maker on the Epstein files. Blanche was. And Blanche did not sit for the interview.

For conservatives who supported the push to release the Epstein files, this raises a legitimate question of accountability. If Bondi wasn't running the investigation and Blanche was, then the committee arguably questioned the wrong person, or at least an incomplete witness. Mace had already argued that Bondi remained legally bound to testify even after leaving the Justice Department. The transcript suggests she showed up but had little to offer on the operational details.

The 3.2 million pages the DOJ didn't know it had

One of the more striking admissions in the transcript concerned the sheer volume of Epstein-related documents. Bondi told the committee that when the Justice Department penned its memo last July, the one that declared Epstein had no client list and that "Epstein didn't kill himself", the department did not realize the scope of its own holdings.

"Clearly, they did not know there were 3 million-plus, approximately 3 million [point] 2 pages of documents at that time."

That July memo had also concluded that no further release of files would be warranted. If the department issued that conclusion without knowing it was sitting on roughly 3.2 million pages of material, the credibility of the memo's findings deserves serious scrutiny.

This is the kind of institutional failure that should concern everyone, left and right. A department that doesn't know the size of its own document trove cannot credibly tell the public there's nothing left to see.

Dhillon's combative role

The transcript describes numerous tense exchanges between Dhillon and Democratic questioners. Dhillon, whose presence at the interview was described as unusual for an assistant attorney general, did not limit herself to privilege objections. She also cut off discussions about the campaign period and prior investigations into Epstein that predated Bondi's tenure but loomed over the Justice Department during it.

At one point, Dhillon accused Democrats of being "determined to eat up all of your time", a remark directed at Bondi, framing the Democratic questions as a deliberate stalling tactic rather than legitimate oversight.

She also argued that Bondi should not have to answer questions that fell outside her time as attorney general. That position, if accepted, would wall off the entire pre-confirmation period, including any transition discussions about how the Epstein files would be handled once Bondi took office.

Since Bondi's departure from the Justice Department, her role in the administration has shifted. But the questions about what she knew and when she knew it haven't gone away.

What Bondi did, and didn't, say about Trump

Bondi flatly refused to discuss any conversations she may have had with President Trump.

"I'm not going to answer any questions, any conversations that I have had with the president of the United States, whether we had them or didn't have them, or the substance."

She said she was not sure of the extent to which Trump was aware of Epstein's crimes. She also said she did not believe Ghislaine Maxwell should be pardoned.

When asked about a woman who claimed Trump had attacked her when she was a minor, Bondi said she did not have more information about the claim. Reports found that some documents relating to the woman's interview with the FBI have still not been posted publicly.

Bondi also said she did not have insight into why certain materials were taken down from public access and then put back online, a pattern that had drawn bipartisan criticism.

The broader political fight over the Epstein files has already produced real consequences. Trump backed Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette over Mace in the South Carolina governor's race after Mace's aggressive push on the Epstein probe put her at odds with the administration.

Open questions the transcript doesn't resolve

The 111-page document, now public, leaves significant gaps. The exact date and location of the closed-door session remain unclear. The full legal basis for the executive privilege assertions, beyond Dhillon's statements, is not laid out. Which specific materials were taken offline and restored is not identified. And the FBI interview documents that reportedly remain unposted are not described in detail.

Most importantly, the transcript does not resolve the core question that drove this investigation: whether the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files was shaped by political considerations, institutional inertia, or something else entirely.

What the transcript does show is a former attorney general who came to Capitol Hill, sat in a chair for four hours, and told Congress, over and over, to ask someone else.

Americans who want the full truth about the Epstein files deserve witnesses who can answer the questions, not just show up and decline them. If Blanche ran the investigation, Congress should hear from Blanche. Accountability doesn't work when every official in the room points down the hall.