In a tense Capitol Hill showdown, Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz grilled Attorney General Pam Bondi over the elusive Epstein “client list” the DOJ insists doesn’t exist—pointing to her own past claims that it was “sitting on my desk right now”—as the room crackled with frustration and accusations of a cover-up.T

On January 6, 2026, a tense House Oversight Committee hearing saw Democratic Representative Jared Moskowitz sharply confront Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. The exchange highlighted ongoing frustrations with the DOJ’s repeated assertions that no formal “client list” exists, despite earlier hype and the circulation of physical binders labeled “Epstein Files: Part One” among select political and media figures.

The confrontation stemmed from the Trump administration’s rocky rollout of Epstein materials throughout 2025. In February, Bondi orchestrated a high-profile event where conservative influencers received white binders titled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” at the White House. Photos of figures like Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok and Rogan O’Handley posing with the binders went viral, fueling expectations of explosive revelations. However, the contents—mostly previously public flight logs and court records—sparked bipartisan backlash, with even Trump allies calling it a “nothingburger.”

Moskowitz, a Florida Democrat known for bipartisan outreach, pressed Bondi on the discrepancy. “You teased a list on Fox News, handed out binders promising transparency, and now the DOJ says no such list ever existed,” he charged. “How do you explain that to victims waiting for accountability?” Bondi maintained that her comments referred to general files, not a specific client ledger, and emphasized protections for victims through redactions. She reiterated the DOJ’s July 2025 memo concluding no incriminating “client list” or blackmail evidence was found after exhaustive review.

Yet whispers persist in Washington corridors. Sources describe binders—variations of “Epstein Files: Part One” or “Phase 1″—quietly shared among congressional staffers, lobbyists, and insiders during closed briefings. These reportedly contain redacted investigative notes, additional photos from Epstein’s properties, and expanded flight manifests, but nothing substantiating a formalized list of abusers. Critics argue the selective circulation undermines public trust, especially as millions of pages remain under DOJ review into 2026 under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The hearing underscored broader tensions. Passed overwhelmingly in late 2025, the Act mandated full disclosure, yet delays and redactions have prompted threats of contempt against Bondi from lawmakers like Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie. Moskowitz highlighted rare unity: “Left and right agree—this process has been a debacle.” Bondi defended the staggered releases as necessary to avoid harming survivors or releasing unverified claims.

No new charges have emerged from the files, and the DOJ insists Epstein’s network involved associations, not proven complicity by most named elites. Still, the saga exposes fault lines in transparency promises. As Moskowitz warned, “Denying a list while binders change hands behind closed doors erodes faith in justice.” With more releases slated for early 2026, the Epstein files continue to haunt political discourse, symbolizing unfulfilled demands for reckoning in elite circles.