Rep. Nancy Mace told CNN on Friday that former Attorney General Pam Bondi is "still compelled legally" to appear before the House Oversight Committee for a deposition on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and that Bondi's removal from office changes nothing about the subpoena's force.

Mace, a South Carolina Republican, made the remarks on CNN's "News Central" after host Kate Bolduan pressed her on whether the committee's probe would survive Bondi's firing. The congresswoman did not flinch. She said the subpoena was drafted to name Bondi personally, not by her title, a legal distinction she argued keeps the demand alive regardless of Bondi's employment status.

The message was blunt: accountability does not expire when a job title does. And Mace made clear she intends to keep pushing.

A subpoena by name, not by office

The core of Mace's argument rests on how the Oversight Committee structured the subpoena. As Mace told CNN:

"I have not yet, but I made my point very clear yesterday when I issued the subpoena that was voted on by the Oversight Committee a number of weeks ago. We did it by name and not by the title of the attorney general, so she is still compelled and required by law to come before the Oversight Committee. And at this juncture, I'm not backing away from that or backing down from that."

That distinction matters. A subpoena directed at "the Attorney General" might arguably lapse once the officeholder leaves. One directed at Pam Bondi by name follows the person, not the position. Mace clearly anticipated the dodge and closed the door before it could open.

When Bolduan asked whether Bondi's firing helped or hurt the effort to get answers about the Epstein files, Mace was direct. She said the subpoena "still stands" and that Bondi's departure from office does not "play one way or the other."

The House Oversight Committee's decision to subpoena Bondi had already drawn attention across Capitol Hill, and Mace's Friday remarks only sharpened the stakes.

What Mace says Bondi must answer for

Mace did not limit her concerns to process. She told CNN she believes Bondi mishandled the Epstein files and owes the committee substantive answers.

"I do believe the handling of the Epstein files was done in a very poor manner by her and her office, and there are still questions that she has answers to that are very serious, and she has information I believe that will be important to the committee. So I'm moving forward."

She also said she had questions about Bondi's public statements on the files and about why not all documents had been released. Mace put it plainly:

"I am pushing to have her in. You know, she's made a lot of statements about the files. I have questions about those statements. I had questions about why not all of the files have been released."

That last line carries weight. If the Justice Department under Bondi's leadership claimed to be transparent about the Epstein records, Mace is signaling she has reason to doubt it. The gap between what was promised and what was delivered is exactly the kind of thing a congressional deposition is designed to close.

Testimony from Epstein's own accountant and attorney before Congress had already raised serious questions about the DOJ's diligence in investigating Epstein's crimes, questions that only grow louder when key records remain under wraps.

Bipartisan pressure, and a chairman in the middle

The subpoena did not come from Democrats alone. The New York Post reported that five Republicans joined Democrats on the committee to compel Bondi's deposition, making the vote bipartisan. Committee Chairman James Comer said the panel wanted answers about "the possible mismanagement" of the DOJ's Epstein probe and wrote that Bondi had "valuable insight" into the department's collection, review, and release of Epstein-related files.

Comer also said the committee sought information about Epstein's death, subsequent investigations, and materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell. The scope is broad, and it goes well beyond partisan gamesmanship.

But there is tension within the Republican ranks. Bolduan noted on-air that a committee spokesperson had told CNN the chairman planned to "speak with members about the status of the deposition subpoenas and confer on next steps" following the news of Bondi's departure. Mace acknowledged she had not yet spoken with the chairman but was not waiting for permission to press forward.

Bondi's turbulent tenure at the DOJ had already produced internal upheaval over leadership and personnel decisions, making the Epstein files controversy just one front in a broader pattern of scrutiny.

Democrats pile on, but the real pressure comes from the right

Democrats, predictably, seized on the moment. The Washington Examiner reported that Rep. Robert Garcia said Bondi "will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our Committee under oath." That kind of language is standard fare from the minority. What is not standard is a Republican like Mace saying essentially the same thing, and backing it up with a subpoena she personally championed.

Mace repeated her position to the Examiner: "My subpoena still stands. When the Oversight Committee moved to subpoena Bondi, I did it by name, not by or not as the sitting Attorney General of the U.S." The consistency of her message across outlets suggests this is not a one-day media hit. She means to follow through.

The real story here is not that Democrats want Bondi held accountable. They always do. The story is that a Republican congresswoman is driving the effort, and that a Republican-led committee voted to back her up.

The deposition timeline and what comes next

Fox News reported that the committee had sought Bondi's deposition within 30 days, though Chairman Comer had not yet formally issued the subpoena at the time of that report. Mace's Friday comments indicate she moved to issue it herself, a step that raises questions about whether the full committee leadership is aligned on timing and enforcement.

Fox also noted that the inquiry ties into broader concerns about the Justice Department's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law designed to force disclosure of records the public has long demanded. If the DOJ under Bondi's watch slow-walked compliance or selectively released documents, including, as critics allege, already-public records handed to social media influencers, those are questions that deserve answers under oath.

Bondi's handling of politically sensitive DOJ matters had already drawn fire from conservatives who expected more aggressive action, not less. The Epstein files dispute fits that pattern.

Open questions the committee must press

Several questions remain unanswered. What specific Epstein-related files were withheld, and on what basis? What did Bondi mean when she made public statements about the files that Mace now wants to challenge? Who decided which records would be released and which would not? And why were some materials reportedly shared with influencers rather than made available through normal channels?

Mace has not laid out all her evidence in public. But her willingness to subpoena a fellow Republican appointee, by name, with bipartisan support, suggests she believes the answers matter more than party loyalty.

That is how oversight is supposed to work. The Epstein case has lingered for years under a fog of institutional evasion, sealed records, and convenient silences. If Bondi has information the committee needs, her job status is irrelevant. The subpoena follows the person.

Americans who want the full truth about Jeffrey Epstein and the institutions that shielded him should not care which party the witness belongs to. Neither, apparently, does Nancy Mace.