Thomas Massie Is Right About Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner… and Pam Bondi

Editor’s Note: Thomas Massie has fought against the Trump agenda and the Republican Party for over a year and as such has not endeared himself to the MAGA base. But as it pertains to those being protected from Epstein-related scrutiny, he’s on the right side of history even as Pam Bondi evades. It’s important to distinguish this because many America First patriots have been dismissing Massie wholesale over his obstruction. On the Epstein issue, he is justified.

Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie delivered an extraordinary rebuke of Attorney General Pam Bondi on Sunday, declaring he has lost confidence in the nation’s top law enforcement official over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and her conduct during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing last Wednesday.

Speaking on ABC’s This Week, Massie went further than simply criticizing Bondi’s performance. He questioned whether she had confidence in herself. When host Martha Raddatz asked directly whether Massie still had confidence in the attorney general, he did not hesitate.

“I don’t think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi,” Massie said. “She wasn’t confident enough to engage in anything but name calling and hearing. And so no, I don’t have confidence in her.”

His reasoning cut to the core of what he witnessed during the hearing and what he describes as systematic failures in document production required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation he co-authored with Democrat Representative Ro Khanna of California.

The hearing that sparked Massie’s loss of confidence became a spectacle of evasion rather than the accountability session Congress intended. Bondi largely responded to questioning with shouting, sarcasm and name calling, according to multiple reports of the proceedings. When Massie pressed her on specific redactions, Bondi accused him of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. When Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin told her not to filibuster, she called him a washed-up, loser lawyer. The performance stood in stark contrast to what members of Congress expect from cabinet officials, even in contentious hearings.

But the most damning moment, in Massie’s view, came when Bondi refused to acknowledge or make eye contact with Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors who were present in the hearing room. When Representative Pramila Jayapal asked survivors to stand if they had tried to meet with Justice Department officials, all of them rose. Jayapal asked Bondi to apologize. Bondi refused, saying “I’m not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics”. Massie called this behavior cold and said he believed Bondi was “afraid to” look at the Epstein survivors during her testimony.

The substance of Massie’s concerns extends beyond Bondi’s demeanor. At the heart of the dispute lies a specific question he posed during the hearing about billionaire Les Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret and Epstein’s longtime financial adviser and only publicly acknowledged client. In a 2019 FBI document listing possible co-conspirators in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, Wexner’s name was originally redacted when the Justice Department released millions of pages of Epstein files. After Massie and Khanna viewed less-redacted versions of the documents and called out the improper redactions, the Justice Department unredacted Wexner’s name within 40 minutes.

When Massie asked Bondi who was responsible for redacting Wexner’s name from the document that mattered, she could not or would not provide an answer.

“When I asked her specifically who redacted Lesley Wexner’s name from the one document that mattered, she couldn’t give me an answer. She wouldn’t give me an answer,” Massie said on ABC. “But ultimately, it’s her who is responsible for the document production. According to our law, the attorney general. It’s not Todd Blanche, it’s not the people below them. You can assign tasks to people, but you can’t assign your responsibility.”

The question of why Wexner’s name was redacted on that specific co-conspirator list while appearing unredacted thousands of times elsewhere in the documents remains unanswered.

The redaction controversy goes beyond a single billionaire. Massie has accused the Justice Department of exposing victim identities in some cases while over-redacting powerful men and possible co-conspirators to Epstein’s sex trafficking operation in others. This pattern suggests either gross incompetence in handling the most scrutinized document release in recent memory or something more troubling. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which President Trump signed into law in November, was written specifically to mandate transparency about these files while protecting only victim identities.

Massie’s critique extended to the Justice Department’s use of deliberative-process privilege as justification for redacting certain documents. This common-law principle allows the federal government to withhold documents revealing internal decisionmaking. But Massie pointed out that the legislation he and Khanna authored explicitly requires the release of internal memos, notes, and emails about decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate. Without access to these documents, Congress cannot understand why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute Wexner or others whose names appear in connection with Epstein’s criminal enterprise.

In a revealing comparison, Massie said that former Attorney General Merrick Garland, with whom he disagrees politically, performed much better in hearings in terms of not looking bad. The statement carries weight coming from a Republican congressman known for his libertarian-leaning independence and willingness to buck party leadership. If Massie found Garland’s testimony more professional and substantive than Bondi’s, the contrast is stark.

The political implications of Massie’s statement of no confidence are significant. For a Republican congressman to publicly declare he has no confidence in a Republican attorney general serving under a Republican president represents an extraordinary breach in party unity. But Massie has never been one to shy away from principled stands that put him at odds with his own party, and he appears to view the Epstein files issue as transcending partisan politics.

Massie made clear during previous interviews that the fight over these files is not about Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, the two presidents whose names have appeared most prominently in public discussion of the documents. This is about getting survivors justice. The survivors need to see some of their own 302 forms, the FBI interview reports that have not been released. They also need to see some of the men they have implicated prosecuted. The Department of Justice, Massie emphasized, is not the Department of Transparency. It is supposed to deliver justice, not merely manage public relations around document releases.

In his Sunday interview, Massie also addressed the political pressure he is facing for his work on the Epstein files.

“This is about the Epstein class, the people who are funding the attacks against me,” Massie said. “They may or may not be implicated in these files, but they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. They’re billionaires who are friends with these people. And that’s what I’m up against.”

The statement suggests Massie believes powerful interests are mobilizing to punish him politically for his persistence in pursuing transparency about Epstein’s network. That he would say this publicly, naming what he calls the Epstein class as his opposition, reveals both his conviction and the stakes involved.

The controversy over the Epstein files has already triggered resignations and intense scrutiny worldwide. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the billionaire CEO of logistics giant DP World, resigned effective immediately following the disclosure of his communications with Epstein. Wexner is scheduled to give sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 18. Whether that testimony will occur in public or behind closed doors, and whether any transcript will be released, remains to be determined.

The Justice Department released over 3 million pages of files from the Epstein case in late January under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Shortly after the release, the department allowed members of Congress to view versions with fewer redactions. After reviewing these documents, Massie claimed the Justice Department had improperly redacted information from an undated document that appeared to contain 20 names and corresponding photographs of potential co-conspirators. In the publicly available version posted to the DOJ website, only two names and photos were originally visible.

Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a six-page report to congressional judiciary committees on Saturday explaining the redactions and providing a list of government officials and politically exposed persons referenced in the released files. The report noted that names appear in the files in a wide variety of contexts, from extensive direct email contact with Epstein or Maxwell to mere mentions in press reporting unrelated to the criminal matters. But the report provided no context for those listed in it, leaving unanswered the fundamental questions about who knew what and when, and why the Justice Department decided not to prosecute certain individuals.

The core issue is not complicated. Congress passed a law requiring transparency about the Epstein files. The Justice Department released millions of pages but appears to have made selective redactions that protected powerful men while in some cases exposing victims. When the attorney general appeared before Congress to explain these decisions, she resorted to insults rather than answers. A member of Congress who co-authored the transparency law now says he has no confidence in her ability to do her job.

Massie is right not to trust Bondi. Her conduct during the hearing was unprofessional and evasive. Her refusal to look at Epstein’s survivors was callous. Her inability or unwillingness to explain who redacted Wexner’s name from the co-conspirator list raises serious questions about whether she is protecting powerful interests or simply incompetent. Neither answer is acceptable for the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

What happens next will test whether the Justice Department can restore credibility on this issue. Wexner’s upcoming testimony may provide some answers, though whether the public will hear those answers depends on decisions yet to be made about transparency. Massie has made clear he will continue pressing for full compliance with the law he wrote. The survivors Bondi refused to look at are still waiting for justice. And the American people are still waiting to understand the full scope of Epstein’s criminal network and why nobody besides Epstein himself and Ghislaine Maxwell have faced consequences.

The Epstein case has always been about more than one predator. It has been about a network of enablers, co-conspirators, and powerful men who facilitated or benefited from his crimes. The redaction of Wexner’s name from a list of possible co-conspirators, followed by its rapid unredaction only after congressional pressure, suggests someone at the Justice Department wanted to protect him. Bondi’s refusal to explain who made that decision and why is disqualifying. Massie’s loss of confidence is not only justified but necessary. Without accountability at the Justice Department, there can be no justice for Epstein’s victims.