Pam Bondi Faces Accusations of Perjury in Explosive Capitol Hill Testimony

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi, a longtime ally of President Donald J. Trump and a prominent figure in Republican legal circles, found herself at the center of a fierce political and legal storm this month following a combative appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. During her testimony on February 11, 2026, Bondi emphatically declared under oath that “there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime,” a statement that has since drawn sharp rebukes from Democratic lawmakers and prompted calls for a formal investigation into whether she committed perjury.

The hearing, intended to address the Justice Department’s handling of newly released files related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, quickly devolved into a tense confrontation. Representative Ted W. Lieu, Democrat of California, confronted Bondi directly, presenting what he described as contradictory evidence from the Epstein documents. Lieu accused her of falsehoods, stating on the record that he believed she had “just lied under oath.” Bondi responded forcefully, rejecting the accusation and insisting, “Don’t you ever accuse me of committing a crime.”

The exchange highlighted deep partisan divisions over the Epstein files, which the Trump administration has been gradually releasing under court-ordered transparency measures. Critics, including some legal scholars and congressional Democrats, have argued that certain documents appear to have been withheld or redacted in ways that obscure potential connections involving high-profile figures, including the president. Bondi has defended the department’s efforts, attributing delays and inconsistencies to technical challenges and the need to protect victim privacy.

In the days following the hearing, the controversy intensified. Representatives Lieu and Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York, sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche urging the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Bondi for allegedly making false statements under oath, a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The lawmakers pointed to released Epstein materials that they claim directly contradict Bondi’s assertion about the absence of evidence implicating Trump in criminal activity. They emphasized the conflict of interest inherent in the attorney general investigating herself, invoking regulations that allow for independent probes in such cases.

Bondi’s tenure as attorney general has been marked by her close association with Trump, dating back to her time as Florida’s attorney general and her vocal defense of him during his earlier legal battles. Her nomination and confirmation were seen as a signal of the administration’s intent to align the Justice Department closely with the president’s priorities. Yet the Epstein files controversy has thrust her into a precarious position, raising questions about the boundaries of loyalty, transparency and the rule of law at the highest levels of government.

Legal experts have weighed in cautiously, noting that perjury prosecutions are rare and require proof of intentional falsehoods on material matters. Some observers have described Bondi’s testimony as evasive rather than outright false, while others argue that the public release of additional documents has created an appearance of inconsistency that demands scrutiny. The Justice Department has not commented directly on the calls for a special counsel, though Bondi has continued to assert that the department is complying with its obligations in good faith.

The episode has reverberated beyond the Capitol, fueling debates in Washington about accountability in an administration that has often framed itself as under siege from political opponents. For Bondi, a prosecutor by training who once built her reputation on tough stances against corruption, the accusations represent a stark reversal. What began as a routine oversight hearing has evolved into a test of her credibility and, by extension, the integrity of the Justice Department under her leadership.

As the Epstein files continue to trickle out amid ongoing litigation, the focus remains on whether the department’s redactions and statements hold up under further examination. Bondi’s defenders portray the attacks as partisan theater aimed at undermining the administration, while critics see the matter as a fundamental question of truthfulness in public office. The coming weeks may determine whether this confrontation leads to formal proceedings or fades amid the broader churn of political Washington.

The stakes are high not only for Bondi personally but for the broader narrative of the Trump administration’s second term, where promises of transparency have collided with accusations of selective disclosure. In a city accustomed to high-stakes testimony and rapid-fire accusations, this particular clash has left an indelible mark, reminding observers that even the nation’s top law enforcement officer is not immune to the scrutiny of Congress or the weight of an oath.