A senior House Democrat is raising eyebrows after claiming that some Republicans may be willing to join a new political push tied to President Donald Trump’s administration—this time over Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said Monday that a small number of Republicans are allegedly “on board” with possible action against Bondi after the Department of Justice failed to meet a congressionally mandated deadline to release Epstein-related records. Khanna made the comments during a television interview, pointing to Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie as a potential leader of the effort.
Despite the headline-grabbing rhetoric, Khanna acknowledged that impeachment is not the immediate goal. Instead, lawmakers are first discussing whether to pursue a contempt of Congress resolution in an attempt to pressure the Justice Department into releasing additional documents.
Familiar Strategy, Uncertain Outcome
Democrats have repeatedly threatened impeachment actions against officials serving under President Trump, but those efforts have consistently stalled in the Republican-controlled House. While Khanna insists this situation is different due to claimed Republican involvement, there is currently no clear indication that House leadership is prepared to advance such measures.
Both Khanna and Massie have publicly stated that their initial focus would be contempt proceedings—not impeachment—despite media narratives suggesting otherwise.
The controversy centers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill passed by both the House and Senate last November. The legislation required the Justice Department to release Epstein-related records within 30 days, allowing only limited redactions to protect victims.
When the deadline arrived, the DOJ released some materials but withheld others. Many of the documents that were released were heavily redacted, drawing criticism from lawmakers, commentators, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum.
Bipartisan Frustration Over Epstein Files
Khanna and Massie, who helped push the legislation through Congress, sharply criticized the Justice Department over the weekend. They argued that the delayed and limited release undermined the intent of the law and raised questions about transparency.
Khanna suggested that Republican participation would give the effort more credibility than previous Democrat-led campaigns against Trump administration officials. However, he also emphasized that impeachment is not imminent and that the next step would be a contempt vote, which could include financial penalties if the DOJ continues to delay.
The two lawmakers discussed the issue again during a Sunday news appearance, where they outlined the possibility of pursuing inherent contempt of Congress—a rarely used mechanism that does not require Senate approval. Under that approach, daily fines could theoretically be imposed until compliance is achieved.
DOJ Responds, More Documents Expected
Attorney General Pam Bondi responded publicly, reaffirming the Justice Department’s commitment to prosecuting anyone involved in the exploitation or trafficking of Epstein’s victims. She encouraged victims to come forward and said the DOJ and FBI would investigate any credible allegations.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also stated that additional materials would be released as the department’s review continues, emphasizing that the process must remain consistent with the law and protections for victims.
Despite those assurances, Khanna later claimed during a podcast interview that draft impeachment articles are already being prepared, though he admitted they would not be introduced immediately.
What Happens Next?
The Justice Department is expected to release more Epstein-related documents in the coming days. Whether the proposed contempt effort gains traction—or whether impeachment is ever formally pursued—remains uncertain.
For now, the episode highlights ongoing tensions between Congress and the Trump administration, as well as continued political fallout surrounding the Epstein case. It also underscores how procedural disputes are increasingly being framed as high-stakes political confrontations, even when actual outcomes remain far from guaranteed.