Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Newly Unredacted Document Raises Questions about Trump's Awareness of Epstein's Abuse; Netanyahu and Trump to Meet on Iran; FAA Reopens Airspace over El Paso, Texas; AG Bondi Testifies before House Judiciary Committee. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired February 11, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Well, welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters. I am Becky
Anderson. We're in Abu Dhabi, where the time is just after 7 in the evening. And we are following several fast-moving stories for you.
Moments from now, we're going to take you to the U.S. Capitol, where U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi could face questions from lawmakers on the
Epstein files.
And next hour, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with U.S. president Donald Trump at the White House.
And we're going to get you the very latest on Mexican cartel drones breaching U.S. airspace in a move that triggered a temporary ground stop of
the airport in El Paso in Texas.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Well, any moment now, U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi will testify in Congress and will likely get grilled by Democratic lawmakers
over the Epstein files and the actions of ICE agents in Minnesota.
Questions about the Epstein files will come amid new revelations, of course, from unredacted documents and criticism that some of those
documents still contain redactions that should have been lifted.
Well, Bondi's appearance in the House is happening a day after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faced questions in the Senate over his visit to
Epstein's island, years after he had claimed to have cut ties with the convicted sex offender.
I'm joined this hour by CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson and CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson.
Stephen, let me start with you. Your latest analysis online is titled, "Lutnick's grilling shows Trump a glimpse of a grim possible future." Just
explain.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, we've had a number of hearings over the last couple of days, which have really exposed
members of the Trump administration, senior cabinet members and others, to fierce questioning from Democrats.
That is not that important now, because Democrats don't hold the majority in either house of Congress.
But if they win the midterm elections, you can expect an absolute wall of scrutiny and oversight, the likes of which this second term for Trump has
never seen. So that could be quite a miserable few years. And I think the Trump administration would fight back very hard.
Let's remember, there were two officials, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, former officials and Trump loyalists, who went to jail after the first
Trump term because they refused to accept subpoenas to testify before Congress.
So I think what you'll see is a very contentious hearing today with Pam Bondi following a very contentious hearing yesterday in which the Commerce
Secretary was facing real questioning over Epstein. So I think this is boiling up. Whether it really hurts the Trump administration politically,
that's another question.
ANDERSON: Joe, let me bring you in. It is now Pam Bondi's turn in the hot seat after lawmakers went to the Justice Department to see these unredacted
Epstein files and then accused the organization of a possible coverup. Have a listen to how congressman Jamie Raskin put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): I saw the names of lots of people who were redacted for mysterious or baffling or inscrutable reasons. I think that
the Department of Justice has been in a coverup mode for many months and has been trying to sweep the entire thing under the rug.
There's no way you run a $1 billion international child sex trafficking ring with just two people committing crimes, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell. No way. It doesn't work like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: I just want to be absolutely clear. You know, in the first instance, let's remember the victims in all of this, because what we are
seeing here is a whole load of emerging themes, not least reputational damage and all the rest of it.
But I wonder, give us the legal perspective on whether there should be more charges, Joey, against more coconspirators and whether the allegations of a
coverup has merit.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that's the open question. I mean the whole basis for this Epstein Transparency Act is really to look in and to
dig into the issues concerning accountability.
[10:05:04]
Who was involved?
What was the nature of their involvement, what was the timeframe upon which they were involved?
What did they know and when did they know it?
So those are issues in terms of who else could or should be accountable that are going to be answered. Let's remember some history about this,
right. The history is, is that they had Epstein.
Who's they?
They is the federal government, in addition to the state government in Florida. They had him in 2005. And there was a sweetheart deal that was
negotiated when the government knew that there were dozens of underage victims who were subject to abuse. They entered into a non-prosecution
agreement.
What does that mean?
It means that he wouldn't be prosecuted, nor were four of his employees who were specifically named in this prosecution agreement. They were not to be
prosecuted, either, in addition to other coconspirators. What a sweetheart deal.
Who gets that?
Billionaires, maybe?
Yes. People who are connected like Epstein, yes. And so he pleads, end up pleading guilty to two felony, state felonies. The federal government has
this indictment prepared that has multiple counts, as many as 60. It never sees the light of day.
And so you look and you say, how could that happen?
And then it goes on, of course, to massive abuse in the years that came after that, when they could have caught him then. And so I think inquiring
minds want to know. And that was the basis for the Epstein Transparency Act, which was an act passed to say, release the files.
Let the American people look at the files, evaluate the files and examine who else was involved.
Last point and that's this, it was noted back then, right back in 2005, '06 and '07. And, of course, victims were not even notified of the secret deal,
that there were 29 people, four of which were coconspirators back at that time, who were not indicted.
The other 25 who negotiated these deals with the government so that they wouldn't be prosecuted. So yes, people are really concerned. And so
there're going to be questions and why, if you're releasing files, you're not release them all.
You don't release them timely. You're redacting information. The law specifically says you cannot redact information relative to foreign
dignitaries, politicians or public figures based upon reputational damage. Shouldn't happen.
And so why do you have these redactions?
You know, they're saying, well, it's beyond me. And so I think there's a question. And those questions are very real, as to give us this
information. Stop redacting things and let us know what happened so that we can get to the heart of your question.
Which is who else, if anyone, should be prosecuted for this Epstein abuse of underage girls of longstanding?
Who enabled him?
Who provided for this to happen?
Those are very good questions.
ANDERSON: And Joey, as you speak, we're looking at images -- and I want to bring them up for our viewers -- of Jim Jordan, of course, who is a close
associate of Donald Trump. He's the chairman of this committee and he's just setting things up before we gavel in for the introduction of the
attorney general.
Stephen, as we wait to hear from Pam Bondi, you wrote in your analysis, quote, "Every time a high-profile figure, let alone a senior cabinet
member, faces such scrutiny, it is bad news for Trump, who is also not accused of wrongdoing but has struggled to explain his own past friendship
with Epstein."
Now Stephen, a new document does seem to contradict Donald Trump's repeated claim that he had no idea about Epstein's proclivities, for want of a
better word. Trump, in the mid 2000s, apparently telling police he was glad they were stopping Epstein because, quote, "everyone has known he's been
doing this."
Trump has survived the Epstein controversy so far.
Is there a point where the tide could turn on him?
COLLINSON: I think unless there is some information that was completely damaging, that hasn't come out about Trump -- and we haven't seen any of
that so far -- I think it's quite unlikely that this is an existential political issue for the president, as it seems to be, for example, for
British prime minister Keir Starmer, who never even met Epstein.
Ironically, I think that's for reasons of the differences between the U.S. political system and institutions. The president is elected for four years
and it's very hard to get rid of him. There's no prospect of that on this issue or any other issue right now, given Trump's control over the
Republican Party.
I think where it's damaging -- and the president let the cat out of the bag himself last week -- he said in the Oval Office it's really time for the
country to move on to something else. Trump doesn't want to be speaking about this. He wants to be talking about what he sees as the success in the
economy, his foreign policy.
He's moving up to a midterm election that's already looking very difficult for Republicans.
[10:10:03]
This is an issue that he can't make go away. It probably hurts him in the abstract, even if it doesn't destroy him. But it keeps coming back.
And I think that is the problem on this. And then, of course, it adds into this wider perception that Trump's Justice Department is corrupt. And I
think that is something that could be politically damaging come the midterm elections.
ANDERSON: Joey, I want to squeeze in another question to you before we hear from Pam Bondi with an opening statement.
If you were questioning Bondi today very specifically about the Epstein files -- and let's remember, this is a DOJ oversight hearing so we may find
that this is not dominated necessarily by the Epstein files.
But what specifically would you ask her about that specifically?
JACKSON: Not enough time in the show to review all the questions that are going to be out there about these files. You are the attorney general. You
have an obligation to run the law department. You are the chief law enforcement officer in the country.
Congress issued a law that was signed, which is the Transparency Act. That means, Ms. attorney general, that you are to be transparent, releasing all
the information to the American people. The deadline was set for December 19th of 2025. You didn't meet that deadline.
What was the basis for that?
What were you holding back?
Why are you having this drip, drip, drip of information with regard to redactions?
Do you understand the law?
The redaction speaks to no foreign dignitaries redacted.
Have you been redacting them?
It speaks to no politicians being redacted.
Have you been doing that?
It speaks to public figures.
Why are these overredactions?
And by the way, in terms of overredactions, there are underredactions, right?
What about people who are victims?
Why were their names released?
What about this other information?
Do we have all the information?
What else are you concealing?
Was anything altered?
What exactly and when can we expect everything to be released so that the American people can see what, if any involvement, the president of the
United States had with this?
And so there's a lot that she's going to be asked concerning that.
ANDERSON: It's good stuff. Thank you.
Stephen, Jim Jordan is concentrating in his opening statement on immigration. And the sense is that is where Pam Bondi will want to keep the
focus. And it is another key issue on the agenda. The acting ICE director striking a very defiant tone when he testified yesterday.
What do we expect from Bondi on that file?
COLLINSON: I'm sure that there will be great defiance. The president has said that he wants to take a softer touch on immigration in Minnesota. But
there are massive questions still over the killing of two American citizens by federal agents last month.
Specifically over why this is not being investigated, apparently more seriously, by the FBI and the Justice Department, why they have not
cooperated with local authorities to try to get to the bottom of exactly what happened and the motivations of the federal agents.
It seems like there have been two killings of Alex Pretti and Ms. Good in Minnesota, which are not going to get justice. There's not going to be
accountability. And I think you will see Democratic members of the House here really try to raise those questions and put Bondi on the spot.
Every time that she comes to a hearing, she comes armed with opposition research and defiance and she's trying to create moments for conservative
media. I would expect her to push back very strongly against those questions.
And you're going to see Republicans like Jim Jordan and other Trump allies on the committee try to give her some cover, try to shield her from those
attacks and redirect the questioning toward what the Republican Party still believes is its great success in securing the border.
Even if Donald Trump's policies, the policies of ICE and the Justice Department have turned immigration, which was once a political boon for the
president, into a liability.
ANDERSON: Right. I'm going to just leave it for the time being.
Both of you, thank you very much indeed for helping us set up what will be an important testimony and cross-examination testimony from the AG, Bondi,
and cross-examination of the attorney general in the hours to come. I am going to just squeeze in a little other news before we get back to that.
So for the time being, stand by.
In the next hour, U.S. President Donald Trump is welcoming the Israeli prime minister to the White House.
[10:15:02]
The two leaders planning to talk primarily about Iran. It is understood president Trump has said a second round of U.S. negotiations with Iran
could happen as soon as next week. Benjamin Netanyahu looking to protect the interests of Israel.
Of course, he says he plans to convey what Israel -- Israelis believe should be essential principles in the talks, including expanding the topics
beyond Iran's nuclear program.
President Trump keeping intense pressure on Iran from multiple angles, telling Axios he might deploy a second naval strike group to the region,
warning that Iran would be foolish not to make a deal. For more on this and the broader picture I want to bring in Israeli journalist Amir Tibon.
He's the author of "The Gates of Gaza," joining us now from Haifa.
Amir, thank you for your time today. Netanyahu's posture toward Iran has been quite clear. He reportedly shared it with Steve Witkoff and Jared
Kushner before last week's talks in Oman, the indirect talks between the U.S. and Tehran and again last night in Washington.
So the question is, how much sway does he have over president Trump?
Your sense at this point?
AMIR TIBON, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: I think he decided to go to Washington because these talks seem serious and he wants to try to influence it while
he can.
I mean, when these kinds of diplomatic events take momentum and they begin to have a life of their own, sometimes it already goes in some direction
and it's too late at that point to try to change course.
So perhaps he believes now is the time to try to influence it. And basically, with president Trump, if you're not speaking directly to him,
then you're not using your full potential influence.
But I think Iran is definitely one of the key issues that will be discussed in the meeting today. But not the only one. We are also seeing some
dramatic potential developments surrounding Gaza.
President Trump wants to have a meeting of the board of peace for Gaza take place next week and I suspect that, at least from his own political
interests at home, that issue for Netanyahu is just as urgent as the Iranian issue.
Because a lot of his partners in his far-right coalition are unhappy about where things are going in Gaza. So it's really a combination of Iran.
What's going to happen in the talks?
You know, is there going to be an agreement?
And Gaza, what happens next week in Washington, D.C., when all these world leaders are convened under the new board of peace led by president Trump?
ANDERSON: Yes. And you're making a really good point. And not to be overlooked, the Gaza file, an incredibly important one to consider. This
is, of course, Netanyahu's seventh visit to the U.S. in just a year. And he moved it up a week before that board of peace meeting that you've just
described.
Just fill us in on what you understand to be Netanyahu's thinking on that at this point.
TIBON: So obviously, with Iran, his main issues are what he's put out in public.
What should be the contents of the agreement, should it cover only the nuclear file or also the Iranian ballistic missiles and other issues?
When it comes to Gaza, I think Netanyahu faces a real problem because, over there, president Trump is working with leaders of other important countries
in the region. And there's a plan. It was unveiled by Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff.
It includes massive investment in reconstructing the Gaza Strip from the damages of the war, with the involvement of the Arab countries. Some of
them are supposed to finance it.
And at the same time, it's also supposed to include the beginning of this international force that will take over Gaza and replace gradually Hamas
but also replace the Israeli military, which currently sits in about half of the Gaza Strip.
And this is very unpopular with the right-wing parties that make up Netanyahu's coalition. It is seen by them as a failure in carrying out the
main goal of the war in Gaza, from their point of view, eliminating Hamas.
Of course, just a year ago, Netanyahu came to Washington and met president Trump for the first time in the current term. And I want to remind you,
back then, president Trump spoke about a plan to basically expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza, which was like a dream come true for the Israeli
far right.
And then a year later today, we're in a totally different place. Nobody's talking about kicking people out of Gaza but about rebuilding the place for
Palestinian residents. So while on Iran, this is really a national consensus issue, in a way here, in Israel. On Gaza, the politics are very
thorny for Netanyahu.
ANDERSON: And also looming over this meeting is Israel's move toward a new law.
[10:20:00]
That would make it easier for Israel to take over Palestinian-controlled land in the West Bank. That has been condemned by Palestinian and Muslim
countries as de facto annexation, including here where I am in the UAE, which is, of course, a key signatory to these Abraham Accords.
The Trump administration, in response, has reiterated that it doesn't support Israel annexing the west point -- the West Bank.
How much of a point of tension do you believe this is going to be in today's meeting?
TIBON: I don't think it's going to be a point of tension directly between president Trump and prime minister Netanyahu. I'm not sure how well briefed
president Trump is about this issue.
But it is definitely causing tensions between his top advisers and the Netanyahu government, because, for president Trump, I think his entire way
of looking at the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the Middle East, you know, in general, is through the lens of potential wins and agreements.
I'm not sure he gets into these details. But the people working for him who are supposed to produce these big agreements, big wins that he's dreaming
of, right?
An Israeli-Saudi peace agreement, expanding the Abraham Accords; the people working on that file, Kushner and Witkoff and others, they understand how
problematic it is for the Israeli government to promote this kind of legislation and then go back to their Arab partners and say, hey can you
move toward normalization with Israel?
The two things directly contradict one another. So whether the president himself has been briefed about it, I cannot say. But I'm sure this is going
to cause problems down the line. And again, it's a place where the political interests of the prime minister contradict what the Trump
administration is trying to do here in the region.
ANDERSON: Yes. It's fascinating. It's really good to have you. Very much appreciate your time. Thank you very much indeed.
And we are keeping one eye open on the Hill because we are expecting to hear the attorney general, Pam Bondi, with her opening statement as she
will be cross-examined in what is this DOJ oversight hearing today. We're going to get back to that as soon as we hear from the attorney general.
U.S. airspace over El Paso, Texas, is open again. A source says it was closed earlier because of military operations. But the federal aviation
authority now says there is no threat to commercial aviation. Let's bring in CNN's correspondent Pete Muntean.
Pete, live in Washington, just fill us in on what's been going on here and what you understand to be the situation.
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A real ping-pong story from the start, that the Federal Aviation Administration essentially instituted a sweeping
blanket ban on all flights going in and out of El Paso, Texas, 10-mile radius, up to 18,000 feet, starting overnight without much of an
explanation.
Now that restriction has been lifted and we have some insight into the initial mystery that initially shrouded this incident and all of these
restrictions.
The Federal Aviation Administration, we're told by multiple sources who have been briefed by government officials, was concerned about nearby
military operations at Fort Bliss, specifically a place called Biggs Army Airfield.
Where the military was conducting anti-drone operations, also using a high- powered laser, we are told, to institute essentially a counter-drone system that could have potentially blinded pilots.
That has been a concern of lasers and use. And so it seemed like the military was going to use this system without clearing it with the FAA and
the Federal Aviation Administration put in place this blanket ban. We're talking a city of about a million people, about 100 flights each day.
It was a 10-day ban initially until February 20th. We're told by multiple sources that is when the federal government was to have a meeting between
the Pentagon, the military and the Federal Aviation Administration.
The FAA says it acted because of a concern, we're told by sources, for civilian flights. Now that ban has been lifted. Really, really interesting
here as to why this went into place. It seems like the left hand of government talking to another hand of government.
We're pushing on that and trying to figure out exactly what took place and what conspired here. But we now have a little bit more insight into this
very mysterious airspace shutdown that's since been lifted.
ANDERSON: Really important we get this from you.
[10:25:00]
That is the very latest. And as Pete said, still pressing for more information.
Thank you, Pete.
And we are keeping an eye on Capitol Hill where U.S. attorney Pam Bondi is set to testify today in Congress. She'll face questions about the Epstein
files, as well as other issues, including immigration, of course. Stay with us.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): -- terms as the Florida attorney general spent more than 18 years as a prosecutor. We welcome our witness and thank
her for appearing today. We will begin by --
ANDERSON (voice-over): Let's get to the Hill and listen to Pam Bondi.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of
your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I do.
JORDAN: Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You can be seated and please know that your written
testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. Madam attorney general, you may
begin.
BONDI: Thank you.
Thank you, chairman Jordan, ranking member Raskin and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for hosting me here today. I'm grateful for
the opportunity to answer your questions, highlight the work of our department and discuss the most important topic of all, keeping the
American people safe.
A little over a year ago, I was sworn into office as the 87th attorney general of the United States. I came into office with a goal of refocusing
the Department of Justice on its core mission after years of bloated bureaucracy and political weaponization.
The Department of Justice's core mission is to fight violent crime, protect the American people and defend the rule of law above all else.
While our work is never done, we have made tremendous progress to make America safe again. In 2025, we saw the lowest murder rate in 125 years.
That's nothing short of historic.
If you compare '25 to '24, here's what you'll find. The murder rate is down 21 percent, robbery down 23 percent, carjacking down 43 percent, gun
assault down 22 percent, assault, burglary, I could go on and on, crime is declining.
This did not happen by accident. The numbers tell an important yet straightforward story. President Trump has given us the resources, the
support and the leadership to protect the American people. President Trump's policies have saved lives.
I cannot think of a policy outcome more important than protecting the lives of American citizens, can you?
This trend has been especially clear in Washington, D.C., and in Memphis. These are two iconic American cities that spent years in the grip of
horrific violent crime.
The Department of Justice surged law enforcement resources and the results came quickly. Crime plummeted in both cities. And I want to make one point
loud and clear, we achieved those results by working with Democratic mayors.
Public safety does not have a party registration. When your constituents call 9-1-1, they don't ask for political views of the responding officer.
They ask for help. I have federal agents in each and every one of your districts. They're here to help and I am here to help.
Many cities and states have worked with us and taken advantage of our federal support. Some have not.
Meanwhile, a few elected officials have declared that they are, quote, at war with the federal government and encouraged widespread obstruction of
law enforcement. This has resulted in avoidable clashes on the streets, as you've all seen.
We've seen rioters storming a Christian church. Citizens and law enforcement officers have both been endangered by reckless rhetoric. We
have made dozens of arrest in and around Minneapolis so far and many of them could have been avoided by simple compliance with federal law.
Of course, our efforts reach beyond our urban centers. We are striking crucial blows against terrorist organizations, such as MS-13, TDA, the
Sinaloa Cartel and Antifa. And as we sit here, I think you've seen the news this morning.
The news is reporting that cartel drones are being shot down by our military.
[10:30:00]
That's what we all should care about right now, protecting America, as we seek to dismantle these drug trafficking networks that poison Americans.
In 2025, our DEA agents seized more than 47 million fentanyl pills and more than 9,800 total kilos of fentanyl. That represents 369 million potentially
deadly doses that can kill Americans.
Meanwhile, our attorneys are fighting for president Trump's agenda in courtrooms across this country. This administration has been sued 627
times. We fought through a nonstop flood of bad faith temporary restraining orders from liberal activist judges across this country.
America has never seen this level of coordinated judicial opposition toward a presidential administration. It is not only an unlawful attack on the
executive branch's authority but a serious attack on the democratic process.
In spite of this unprecedented judicial activism, we've attained 24 favorable rulings at the U.S. Supreme Court, their emergency docket and
even more to come. We've done so while ending the weaponization of the prior administration by dropping FACE Act prosecutions, exposing the Arctic
Frost scandal via congressional disclosure.
Thank you, chairman.
And restoring one tier of justice in this country. To address the Epstein files, more than 500 attorneys and reviewers spent thousands of hours
painstakingly reviewing millions of pages to comply with Congress' law.
We've released more than 3 million pages, including 180,000 images, all to the public, while doing our very best in the timeframe allotted by the
legislation to protect victims. And if you brought us a victim's name that was inadvertently released, we immediately redacted it.
All members of Congress, as you know, are invited to visit DOJ to see for yourselves. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the Epstein survivors
who are here today. I'm a career prosecutor and, despite what the ranking member said, I have spent my entire career fighting for victims.
And I will continue to do so. I am deeply sorry for what any victim, any victim, has been through especially as a result of that monster. If you
have any information to share with law enforcement about anyone who has hurt you or abused you, the FBI is waiting to hear from you.
I want you to know that any accusations of criminal wrongdoing will be taken seriously and investigated. The Department of Justice is committed to
holding criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
In 2025, the FBI arrested over 1,700 child predators, a 10 percent increase from 2024. We also located 2,700 victims of child exploitation and shut
down 3.8 million dark web pedophile accounts -- 3.8 million.
So please, if you have information to share that needs to be investigated, contact the FBI today. I look forward to discussing further our shared
obligation to protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and keep this nation safe. Thank you.
JORDAN: Thank you, madam attorney general. The chair -- now we now proceed under the five-minute rule. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
California for five minutes.
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): Thank you, chairman.
Madam general, thank you for your extensive remarks, particularly on your continued investigation of those responsible over the years in the Epstein
debacle. Obviously you have an amazingly full docket between civil rights, between criminal, between so-called white collar crime.
[10:35:03]
And doing so, as the chairman said, at a time in which both you and the president are under attack and our ICE agents and FBI and others are under
attack when they try to enforce the law.
I personally want to apologize for those who would embolden, support or even stand with those lawbreakers that sit on this and other daises here in
Congress. My job generally is to talk about patents and trademarks as the chairman of that subcommittee.
I'll forego that today because one of my other jobs is the creation and maintenance of Article III judges. And I work with the chief justice on
that. And we're trying to expand the court.
But currently there are only 677 district court judges. They have very full dockets as well. But you create a tremendous amount of judges, particularly
immigration judges. You do so in order to save the court that but adjudicate, as is requirement, each of those people who claim a right to be
here in the United States.
And that has been going on under Republican and Democratic administrations for years. What's unique about the Trump administration this time is that
you and president Trump have managed to reduce the backlog of people seeking that for the first time in decades.
You are getting ahead of that tremendous backlog that caused, for better or worse, the release of millions of people with little pieces of paper
saying, come back later when we call you and often to no avail when you call. So I want to congratulate you on that because it's an accomplishment
you might not take credit for.
And the other side would never give you credit for but I hope you can continue to do that and do more.
And I say so for a reason, because much of this hearing will be about Minneapolis and other places in which the backlog of criminal aliens,
including in my home state of California, people who have hurt other people, who people who have victimized their communities, is extensive.
And although the overall number, through adjudication may be going on, because of places like my home state, California you're unable to apprehend
people that my sheriffs want apprehended. They desperately want to cooperate and they're prohibited by law.
It is this committee's opinion on this side of the aisle that, in fact, you should be given the ability to demand that participation and that the
release of a known criminal not be considered to be acceptable just because a state or city has declared itself a sanctuary.
I want you to opine on just one thing that I think has been misunderstood. As I said earlier, you create and maintain that those judges that
adjudicate these cases, you also support -- you also support so many that in fact have to make decisions as judges, knowing that this limitation of
so few Article III judges are there.
Please educate those who seem to miss the point that Article I judges, including bankruptcy judges, including immigration judges, including lots
of people with the title appropriately judge, do in fact issue documents that look like, act like and are normally accepted as warrants, as
subpoenas, as demands for state officials to stand aside.
And allow the production of either an individual or documents because I think people are missing the point that these ICE retainers and detainers
and so on, they act like they're nothing, when in fact, in the ordinary course you do, in fact, have Article I judges constantly putting those out
and they are respected normally.
BONDI: Yes. Thank you, congressman, for talking about all the great judges. And if I could add one thing to that, we are always recruiting and
looking for judges. So please reach out to our office.
For these judges who are handling all these very important matters, we've even added some JAG officers as immigration judges. Thank you. And so we're
continuing to do that but we're always seeking qualified lawyers as well to be part of that. And thank you for highlighting that, Congressman.
[10:40:00]
ISSA: Thank you. I yield back.
JORDAN: Gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, attorney general Bondi.
Right here.
We are joined in this room by some of the thousands of survivors from Jeffrey Epstein's horrific sex trafficking ring. They have shown such
incredible courage in speaking out, in demanding accountability to bring the predators and pedophiles to justice.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act required your Department of Justice to disclose the perpetrators connected with Epstein's criminal activities and
to redact the information of survivors to protect their identities.
Let me show you what actually happened. First, in violation of the law, your department has shown a pattern of redacting the names of powerful
predators. Here behind me is one example of an email from Epstein to a man whose name was redacted.
The email reads quote, "Where are you?
"Are you OK?
"I loved the torture video."
Only after members of Congress demanded that we see the unredacted files did the world learn the name of this individual, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem,
the chairman and CEO of a company that had financial ties to president Trump's business and personal ties to Trump's adviser, Steve Bannon.
Second, the survivors were not similarly protected, also in violation of the law. Here is another email titled "Epstein victim list." We have
blurred the names of the survivors for their protection.
But your Department of Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors' names, with only one name redacted, along with numerous files
that disclosed not only the names, the emails and the addresses of survivors but also nude photographs and even the identities of Jane Does,
who had been protected for decades.
Until your department released their names, survivors are now telling us that their families are finding out for the first time that they were
trafficked by Epstein.
In their words, quote, "This release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors punish those who came
forward and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for decades."
To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands.
If you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice, please note for the record, that every single survivor has raised their
hand.
Attorney general Bondi, you apologized to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein.
Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the absolutely unacceptable release of the
Epstein files and their information?
BONDI: Congresswoman, you sat before -- Merrick Garland sat in this chair twice.
JAYAPAL: Attorney general Bondi --
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: Can I finish my answer?
JAYAPAL: No. I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you, attorney --
(CROSSTALK)
JAYAPAL: -- question --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The attorney general --
JAYAPAL: -- I would like you to answer, which is will you turn to the survivors?
This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done
to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Members get to ask the questions. The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer.
The attorney general --
(CROSSTALK)
JAYAPAL: That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman.
BONDI: Because she doesn't like the answer. So --
JAYAPAL: Mr. Chairman --
BONDI: -- why
JAYAPAL: -- I have asked --
BONDI: -- and she asked Merrick Garland this --
JAYAPAL: -- reclaiming my time.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady is reclaiming her time.
BONDI: I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The time belongs to -- the time belongs to the gentlelady. The gentlelady has 17 seconds.
JAYAPAL: Thank you. You're not going to answer this question, so let me just --
BONDI: Chairman, I'll direct it --
JAYAPAL: -- what a massive cover-up --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chairman, will you restore her time?
The witness is interrupting her.
[10:45:00]
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: -- with this woman (INAUDIBLE) doing theatrics.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentlelady from Washington controls the time. The gentlelady has 17 seconds. You can -- you can proceed with your final 17
seconds.
JAYAPAL: Thank you -- what a massive coverup this has been and continues to be. Donald Trump made the release of the Epstein files the center of his
political campaign, because he thought it would benefit him.
Then you got into office. Attorney general claimed to have a client list --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regular order.
JAYAPAL: -- say that there was no list. Your deputy, Todd Blanche, met alone with Ghislaine Maxwell.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time of the gentlelady has expired.
JAYAPAL: -- to a minimum security prison. And now you continue the coverup.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time of the gentlelady has expired.
JAYAPAL: -- you would turn around to the survivors who are standing right behind you. And on a human level --
Chairman --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- now recognizes the --
(CROSSTALK)
JAYAPAL: -- what you have done.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time is -- the time of the lady --
JAYAPAL: I yield back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- the gentlelady -- you have no time to yield back. I appreciate that. We appreciate the thought.
The -- and I would argue the central issue in the last election, the presidential election, was securing the border.
The gentleman from Arizona, who knows something about securing the border, is up for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, attorney general Bondi, for being here today.
REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): In 2022, Lafarge, which is a French cement company, pled guilty in U.S. federal court to participating in a criminal
conspiracy with ISIS. That conspiracy contributed to the deaths of U.S. service members, fighting in Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.
As part of the plea agreement, Lafarge was required to pay more than $775 million to the DOJ's asset forfeiture fund. In February 2025, my colleagues
and I sent you a letter, urging the department to review the petitions for remission submitted by the families of those fallen service members,
including several of my constituents.
The previous administration ignored these victims and our requests and left their petitions unresolved. My question for you on this particular issue is
if you're willing to work to ensure those families that their petitions will be reviewed and brought to a resolution.
BONDI: Congressman, we are aware of that and we're committed to doing everything we can to support the victims and work with you. Thank you for
that question.
BIGGS: Yes, I appreciate your answer. And now let's go to something that is also pressing that I've been working on for years. And this is the FISA
section 702 and Arctic Frost.
In January 2025 you testified before the U.S. Senate and agreed with senator Lee that, quote, "Anytime an American citizen's private
communications are intercepted or stored, whether through incidental collection or otherwise, those communications should not be searched
without some showing of probable cause," close quote.
You still hold that view today, I assume.
BONDI: Yes.
BIGGS: And during the most recent FISA reauthorization, I offered an amendment to establish a clear warrant requirement for searches of
Americans' data while preserving every publicly cited operational exception, including emergencies, defensive queries, cybersecurity threats.
And my intent was to ensure the Department of Justice could continue to keep Americans safe while also ending warrantless searches of U.S. persons'
data.
Are there any additional circumstances or exceptions that you believe must be included to ensure DOJ can continue to operate effectively while still
protecting American citizens' data and privacy?
BONDI: Yes, congressman, we are committed to working with Congress to uncover weaponization and other misconduct by Jack Smith, by others, Arctic
Frost, everything that happened under the past administration.
And we are committed to working with you on that. And we are working with chairman Jordan, with the House Intel, with all of our my fellow cabinet
members on resolving that issue.
BIGGS: Well, thank you. I'm glad you brought up Arctic Frost because section 702 was used in the Arctic Frost investigation. And information
derived was used by special counsel Jack Smith.
And my question has always been -- and no one's been able to answer this -- is what was the legal predicate for using a foreign intelligence authority
in the Arctic Frost investigation?
Have you been able to ascertain any legal predicate?
BONDI: Congressman, what I can tell you today is that has been referred to my office. I can't discuss anything regarding that because it is very
active and ongoing.
BIGGS: And you probably can't answer this one, either, but I really want to know if section 702 queries related to that matter involved members of
Congress, which we know, on some level, it did; congressional staff, which we know at some level did.
We've heard that journalists or other U.S. persons not suspected of acting as foreign agents were also caught up in that.
Can you answer that question and say whether queries did cover all those groups I just identified?
[10:50:00]
BONDI: It is a very active pending investigation within my office. However, I believe many members of Congress have stated that their phones
were part of Arctic Frost. We are well aware of that and we are taking this very seriously. And this is a very active investigation.
And I would keep going and say if any member of the Democrat party, if any of them, if that had happened to them, we would take that just as serious
as we do. And they should be jumping up and down, screaming, supporting you and what you want to do, because this should be a bipartisan issue.
BIGGS: Well, I hope it is a bipartisan issue. And you know, I'll just leave with these last couple of questions, which I'm sure fall into the
same investigation privilege. But that's this.
How many such queries were actually conducted?
Overall this is outside Arctic Frost in the prior year by the FBI or other intelligence community and particularly we really need to know what were
the legal standards applied.
Did they use probable cause?
Did they use reasonable, articulable suspicion?
Or did they have no individualized suspicion and just were gathering up information?
And that's beyond the investigation regarding Arctic Frost. I don't expect you to have that information today. But if you can help get that
information so we can understand the extensive nature of this continued misuse of 702, it would be very particularly helpful.
BONDI: And it was extensive. Yes, congressman. Thank you.
JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a U.C., Mr. Chairman.
JORDAN: And that is the gentlelady from Texas
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, El Paso airspace reopened after FAA quickly rescinds 10-day flights
restriction. This was published by "The Texas Tribune" on February 11th, 2026.
And it says it was because of an impasse with the DOD over the use of unmanned --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without objection, without objection --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- military aircraft not triggered by Mexican cartel drones.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without objection.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I didn't hear back about the second round of questions. I assume that's not happening. I just
want to be able to assure the members, certainly on my side, if not both sides --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's not a point of order.
RASKIN: -- that every member will get five minutes with the witness.
Will there be five minutes for each?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. You get five minutes. Yes.
RASKIN: With the witness?
OK, very good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. OK.
And are you up next?
Gentleman from New York is recognized.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's horrific abuse who are in the room with
us today.
I want to thank all of you for your bravery in speaking out. I want to say that you and the other survivors of these heinous crimes deserve better
from this Department of Justice. In particular, it is shocking that the department did not redact the names of Epstein's victims. But it did redact
the names of their abusers.
I don't know whether this was done out of incompetence or whether it was deliberate and malicious. But either way, it is completely unacceptable.
Even more troubling, the DOJ has failed to bring any of these perpetrators to justice. Instead, it has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Donald
Trump's perceived enemies.
I want to focus on just one example, the attorney general of my home state of New York, Tish James. This DOJ has been hell bent on securing an
indictment against Ms. James for something, anything, simply because she held Donald Trump's companies accountable for years of financial fraud.
And indeed, the department manufactured an investigation against her for alleged mortgage fraud. But the U.S. attorney leading the investigation,
Erik Siebert, a Trump appointee, refused to bring charges against Ms. James because there was simply no evidence.
Unfortunately, a prosecutor who refuses to do Trump's bidding has no place in this DOJ. So Mr. Siebert was forced out. Trump could not contain his
fury, fury that he expressed to you in a social media post, addressed to you by name. I'm sure you've seen it.
Quote, "I fired him and there is a great case he wrote to you about Mr. Siebert. Then we moved down. We can't delay any longer. It's killing our
reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now."
And obviously, you followed that order.
Lindsey Halligan, Trump's former defense lawyer, who had never prosecuted a case in her life, was installed to replace Mr. Siebert. And it was clear
that part of her mandate was to go after Ms. James.
Halligan immediately sought an indictment, which a court dismissed because Halligan was illegally put into the role. But your department was
undeterred and not once but twice it tried to indict attorney general James in separate courts.
[10:55:00]
Both grand juries rejected you and refused to indict her. It is practically unheard of for a grand jury to refuse an indictment. In 2016 it happened in
just six cases out of over 150,000 offenses. And you had it happen twice in the same week in two different courts. That must have been humiliating.
And now there are reports that you are continuing to investigate her. The amount of resources that have gone into targeting attorney general James,
months of investigations, multiple failed indictments, is astounding.
Since your prosecutors told you that there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, it's clear that you are going after her simply
because she held president Trump accountable and he wants to punish her.
And she is just one name on a long list of Trump political enemies the DOJ is reportedly targeting, from Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook at the Federal
Reserve, to James Comey, numerous Democratic members of Congress, John Brennan, Jack Smith, Democratic officials in Minnesota, Chris Krebs, Milo
Taylors and more.
And those are just the ones we know about. In contrast to these politically motivated investigations, grasping at something they can charge their
enemies with, we now have concrete evidence of disgusting criminality revealed in the Epstein files.
So I have just -- so I really have just one question for you.
How many of Epstein's coconspirators have you indicted?
How many perpetrators are you even investigating?
BONDI: First, you showed -- I find it --
NADLER: How many have you indicted?
BONDI: Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question.
NADLER: I -- answer my question.
BONDI: No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrical --
NADLER: You answer the question the way I asked it.
BONDI: Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. I'm going to answer the question.
NADLER: How many have you indicted?
JORDAN: Again, the time belongs --
NADLER: I'm claiming my time.
JORDAN: The time belongs --
BONDI: I think it's very interesting --
NADLER: Reclaiming my time.
BONDI: -- I think it's very interesting --
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: -- they indicted, the president said they indicted him --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and -- stop the clock and restore his time.
(CROSSTALK)
JORDAN: Time belongs to the gentleman from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask the question, the
witness --
You may not like the answer but she gets to answer.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The question was, how many of Epstein's --
BONDI: They don't like the answer, Chairman.
NADLER: -- my time --
BONDI: -- because it's honest. So he asked a four-minute question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Restore 45 seconds to Mr. Nadler, please, Mr. Chairman.
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: -- answer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can let her filibuster all day long but not on our watch, not on our time. No way.
And I told you about that, attorney general, before you started.
BONDI: You don't tell me --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
BONDI: -- lawyer. Not even a lawyer.
JORDAN: Committee will be in order.
NADLER: And I know I should get back at least 45 seconds.
JORDAN: We will give you a few more seconds. I said that already.
NADLER: -- 45 seconds.
JORDAN: OK, I will -- I'm timing right now, Mr. Nadler.
BONDI: All right.
NADLER: -- my time.
The answer to my question, how many of Epstein's coconspirators has she indicted, is zero.
You have been the attorney general for a whole year and your DOJ fired the lead prosecutor of this case, sat on evidence this entire time and claimed
falsely last July that there were no more leads.
It took an act of Congress for you to finally release part of the Epstein files. And when you did, you included personal information about the
victims while protecting the names of abusers.
JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired.
NADLER: -- brought to justice but enormous resources --
JORDAN: Time of the gentlemen has expired. And obviously --
NADLER: -- that under your leadership, the Department of Justice no longer --
JORDAN: -- question in there --
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: I yield back.
JORDAN: The gentleman yields back.
BONDI: May I answer?
JORDAN: I think our next -- our next question, madam attorney general, is going to give you time to respond to --
BONDI: Thank you, Chairman.
JORDAN: -- all kinds of things. So we will turn to the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Bondi, you go right ahead. I'm over here. The time is yours.
BONDI: Thank you.
First he brought up the president saying they indicted me twice. They sure did. They tried to impeach him twice. And you, Mr. Nadler, were one of the
leads on the impeachment.
I was on the other side. I lived that with you during impeachment. You said the president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election.
Robert Mueller found no evidence, none of foreign interference in 2016.
Have you apologized to president Trump?
Have you apologized to president Trump?
All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald Trump, you all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the
president and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it.
You know, all they want to do, all the American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama
administration. This administration released over 3 million pages of documents, over 3 million.
And Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents.
[11:00:00]
END
