Attorney General Pam Bondi’s leadership of the Department of Justice is facing fresh scrutiny as Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend and accomplice, appeals her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Maxwell, a British socialite and onetime associate of Prince Andrew, is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted in 2022 for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network. Her legal team argues that a 2008 non-prosecution deal Epstein struck with federal prosecutors should have shielded her from prosecution. The Trump administration’s response to her appeal is due by July 14.
Why This Matters
Bondi is under intense fire from within the MAGA movement after the DOJ and FBI issued a memo stating there is no Epstein “client list” and no credible evidence of a blackmail operation—contradicting Bondi’s February comments suggesting such a list was “on her desk.”
Critics on the right accuse the DOJ of a cover-up. Some see Bondi’s comments and subsequent clarification by the White House—as referring only to general Epstein files—as misleading. The backlash is growing, with conservative figures, including Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones, publicly criticizing Bondi’s handling of the issue.
What We Know About the Case
Jeffrey Epstein was facing federal charges for trafficking minors when he died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019. He is believed to have exploited hundreds of girls, allegedly with the involvement or awareness of powerful associates. While high-profile names like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew have been linked to Epstein, all deny wrongdoing and none have been charged.
Earlier this year, the DOJ launched a new review into Epstein’s case under Trump’s directive. But a July memo dashed hopes for further prosecutions, stating:
“No incriminating ‘client list’ was uncovered… No credible evidence was found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.”
The statement infuriated segments of Trump’s base, intensifying pressure on Bondi as the DOJ prepares its legal response to Maxwell’s Supreme Court appeal.
Maxwell’s Argument
In her appeal, Maxwell claims the government violated a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made with Epstein, which she says should have protected co-conspirators like herself from future charges.
“Because the United States prosecuted her in the Second Circuit, and not where Epstein’s deal was struck, she’s serving 20 years. Had she been charged in at least four other circuits—including the Eleventh, where the deal was made—her case would have been thrown out,” her legal filing argues.
She’s asking the Supreme Court to resolve conflicting interpretations across federal appellate courts over how such federal promises should be enforced.
The Trump Administration’s Dilemma
D. John Sauer, Trump’s Solicitor General pick, has twice requested delays in responding to the appeal. The current deadline is July 14. In his letter to the Court, Sauer cited a backlog of other legal matters as the reason for the request.
It remains unclear whether the government will file its reply or seek a third extension. Either way, a Supreme Court update is expected imminently.
Inside the Fallout
At Turning Point USA’s recent summit, Megyn Kelly blamed Bondi directly for mishandling the issue:
“She is the reason things are unraveling. She keeps teasing revelations that never come. Meanwhile, others like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel—who had questions about Epstein before joining the FBI—have gone silent.”
Kelly criticized Bondi for regularly appearing on television while offering little substance:
“She’s always on TV saying, ‘it’s coming, it’s on my desk.’ But nothing ever materializes.”
Meanwhile, former President Trump came to Bondi’s defense on Truth Social:
“They’re all going after Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA… all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. It’s Epstein over and over again.”
What’s Next
The DOJ is expected to either submit its Supreme Court response or request more time. With public frustration mounting and internal party tensions rising, the department’s next move will be closely watched—not just for its legal ramifications, but for its political fallout.
