Pam Bondi Defied Federal Law by Erasing Epstein Photos to Protect Trump

(Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

The Department of Justice is currently engaged in a clear cover-up operation in direct violation of federal law.

Over the weekend, the department quietly removed 16 photos from the Epstein files website Created to comply with a disclosure statute passed by Congress and signed into law by the President Donald Trump. relocations It arrived without any notice or explanation. Among the deleted images was a photo of a closet drawer inside, one of the few photos that indirectly featured Trump. Jeffrey Epstein The Manhattan home also contains other photographs, including at least one photo of Trump. The other twelve photos depicted Epstein’s third-floor massage room, a central crime scene in the federal investigation. Some images of the same room are publicly available. Others disappeared.

When Democrats enter the House Oversight Committee he asked The Justice Department declined to answer whether the Trump-related image had been removed.

What followed made the situation even worse.

In a post on X quote Deputy Chief Prosecutor Todd Blanche, Ministry of Justice requested “Photographs and other materials will continue to be lawfully reviewed and edited with great care as additional information becomes available.” Blanche’s original post claimed that the department had released the Epstein materials “under the Epstein Files Transparency Act” and that additional disclosures would come “as our investigation continues, consistent with the law and victim protection.”

This statement is against the law applied by the ministry.

Congress did not authorize continued review. Epstein Files Transparency Act forces The Department of Justice will release all Epstein-related materials in its possession. The law imposes a mandatory duty of disclosure and allows only limited remedies to protect victims. It does not authorize the retraction, correction or editing of records after publication. Once the department published these materials, the law required them to remain publicly available.

Their removal puts the department in direct conflict with legislation passed by Congress.

This conflict was noticed immediately. Blanche’s post received a community shoutout stating that the law requires the release of all files and only allows narrow redactions to protect victims, adding that the department’s partial release and sweeping redactions violate the statute. The Department of Justice’s own post received a community shoutout directly referencing the law and stating that retractions and corrections are not allowed to protect politically exposed people. Community Notes appear only when users with different political viewpoints agree on their accuracy, underscoring how widely shared this conclusion is.

Ministry’s own statement approves He is violating the law he claims to obey.

The sequence reveals the reason. The files have been published. Political backlash followed. The department later changed public records. Harmony only lasted until the presidential exposé emerged, then gave way to erasure.

In November, I described the Trump Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files as a cover-up. Last week, I wrote that the administration’s delay in the announcement created a political problem rather than a direct legal problem. This assessment reflected weak enforcement mechanisms and an approach based on delay rather than open challenge.

This moment signals escalation.

Removing already published material implicating the president would turn the credibility crisis into a legal violation and a much larger political emergency. Congress passed the Epstein disclosure law precisely to strip executive discretion. Lawmakers took action because the Justice Department has repeatedly shown it cannot be trusted to handle politically sensitive material involving powerful figures. The law required disclosure to prevent the executive from protecting itself.

The Department nevertheless exercised this discretion.

Attorney General Pam Bondi had legal options. He could request a judicial review. He could consult Congress. He could have accepted that the statute did not allow any power of expulsion and requested changes. Any means would preserve institutional legitimacy. Instead he chose concealment and false justification.

This deletion differs in a crucial way from previous Trump-era document fights. Previous disputes focused on whether the materials should be disclosed. This section includes evidence that has already been made public under legal standards. The department determined that the images met the law’s requirements, then removed them when the political cost became apparent.

This changes everything.

Every disclosure law now faces the same test: Compliance only survives until it threatens the president. Months of delay, sweeping redactions and gradual clarifications have convinced much of the public that the Justice Department has prioritized transparency, victims and the public interest. The removal of the images unequivocally confirms this conclusion.

The Justice Department, which marshals evidence to protect the president, is losing legitimacy. Surveillance breaks down when obedience results in political discomfort. The rule of law depends on laws that bind the executive even when compliance is costly.

Congress wrote a law to prevent this very abuse. The President signed it. The attorney general is now violating the law to protect her. This meets every reasonable standard for dismissal.

The reaction on Capitol Hill was immediate and bipartisan. Democratic Representative Ro Khanna Co-author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and Republican Representative from California. Thomas Massie Both of Kentucky, who pushed the House of Representatives to issue a compelling statement, said the Justice Department had failed to comply with the law. Khanna confirmed that he and Massie were together. draft Dismissal and contempt measures against the Chief Prosecutor Pam Bondi.

Congress now faces an election. He may accept that disclosure laws are valid only when it is politically painless. It could normalize the disappearance of evidence that is already public. It may allow the executive power to override a legislative order.

Or he can implement the law he wrote.

This is a cover-up implemented through executive defiance. The question now is whether Congress will enforce its own laws.

Post Impeachable: Pam Bondi Broke Federal Law by Deleting Epstein Photos to Protect Trump appeared for the first time mediate.