Department of Justice tracking of Epstein file views ignites Capitol Hill dispute
A new flap over access to the unredacted Jeffrey Epstein records broke open on Capitol Hill this week, after Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared with paperwork indicating which specific files some lawmakers had reviewed. The revelation spurred immediate disagreement over whether the department of justice inappropriately tracked member activity on secure viewing terminals and whether such logging amounts to surveillance of Congress.
The flashpoint: records of lawmakers’ searches
The controversy stemmed from a moment on Wednesday (ET), when Bondi was photographed holding a document that reflected Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s search history of the unredacted Epstein files. Members can only examine those records inside a private room at Justice Department headquarters, using one of several secure portals. The controlled setting was designed to protect sensitive material while allowing limited access for oversight and review.
Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who clashed with Bondi during a House Judiciary Committee hearing the same day, later confirmed the paperwork highlighted the same documents she had viewed at the department. Her acknowledgment sharpened questions about how the portals operate and what information is captured when members log in to view unredacted materials.
Democratic alarm over ‘surveilling members’
Jayapal characterized the situation as “surveilling members,” calling it “totally inappropriate.” She raised the possibility that early access to the unredacted files — two days before the hearing — could have been used to track what lawmakers were preparing to ask. “Is this the whole reason they opened [the files] up to us two days early? So they could essentially surveil members to see what we were going to ask her about?” she said.
Her comments captured broader concerns among Democrats that any logging of search activity could chill congressional oversight, particularly when lawmakers are preparing to question senior officials or probe politically sensitive matters.
GOP response ranges from skepticism to concern
Republicans were far from unified. Some said they were not familiar with the matter. Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri both indicated they had not seen details circulating about the secure portals or alleged tracking. Pressed on whether it would be unusual for the department to log searches, Hawley replied the idea “would surprise me,” adding, “I can’t imagine what the reason for that would be.”
Others signaled unease. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana initially declined to weigh in on what he described as an unsubstantiated allegation. By Wednesday night (ET), he allowed that “it would be inappropriate if it happened.” By Thursday morning (ET), after conferring with Jayapal, Johnson’s tone shifted further: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody to be tracking that, so I will echo that to anybody involved with the DOJ. And I’m sure it was an oversight, that’s my guess.”
Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina went further, asserting that the department is “tagging” all documents searched and reviewed by lawmakers within the system. She said she would not disclose how she confirmed the practice but maintained there are “timestamps associated with this tracking.” At the same time, some Republicans offered full-throated defenses of the Justice Department’s handling of the portal access, underscoring the party’s internal split on the episode.
Key questions facing the Justice Department
The uproar has spawned a cluster of unresolved questions that lawmakers are likely to press in the days ahead: What exactly do the secure terminals log? Who inside the department can see that information and for how long is it stored? Were any records of member activity shared beyond the immediate custodians of the system? And what policies govern access logs when a separate branch of government is conducting oversight?
There are also separation-of-powers implications. If the department can review individualized search histories tied to members of Congress, critics argue that could influence how lawmakers prepare for hearings or pursue sensitive leads, even if the original intent of any logging was administrative or security-related.
What to watch next
Expect mounting pressure for a formal explanation from department officials about the scope and purpose of any logging on the secure portals, including whether identity-specific histories were generated and disseminated. House committees could push for briefings, written policies, or audits of the system. Leaders from both parties face decisions about setting guidelines to ensure sensitive reviews can proceed without the perception that member research is being monitored.
As of Thursday (ET), those questions lingered, with Democrats calling the practice improper and Republicans split between skepticism, concern, and defense of the department. The next move likely hinges on whether the department provides a clear accounting of how the portals track activity — and whether Congress agrees the safeguards in place are adequate for future reviews of unredacted material.
