In court did Pam Bondi say trump told her to take documents out of the Epstien files?
Executive summary
No reporting in the provided sources shows Attorney General Pam Bondi telling a court that Donald Trump personally instructed her to remove documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files; instead, the record shows disputed briefing timelines, questions at oversight hearings about who flagged Trump-related records, and public controversy over DOJ removals and redactions [1] [2] [3]. Claims that Bondi said in court Trump told her to “take documents out” are not supported by the documents and articles supplied here.
1. What the sources actually document about Bondi, Trump and the Epstein files
Multiple contemporaneous news reports and government letters document that Pam Bondi was centrally involved in how the Justice Department handled releases of Epstein-related materials: she publicly ordered the files reviewed and led a phased release (DOJ press release), she briefed the White House about the files, and the administration’s handling prompted bipartisan anger and oversight letters [4] [5] [6]. The Wall Street Journal and BBC reported that Bondi briefed President Trump that his name appeared among hundreds of mentions in the files, a point the White House later sought to push back on but which is reflected in the coverage [1] [7].
2. What happened in hearings and oversight reporting — flagging vs. a presidential order to remove items
Oversight reporting and Senate/House documents show lawmakers asking sharply who ordered FBI agents to flag documents that mentioned President Trump during the review, and Bondi declined to answer some questions at a Judiciary Committee hearing, saying she had not reviewed every matter and pointing to a joint DOJ/FBI memo concluding there was no “client list” [2]. Separately, congressional correspondence and internal memos allege pressure on the FBI and accelerated review instances, but these materials document institutional actions and redactions rather than a court statement from Bondi that Trump ordered items removed [5] [8].
3. The concrete, reported episodes of removal or disappearance of items
News stories and commentary reported specific incidents — such as photos briefly removed from the DOJ’s public Epstein files portal and later restored — which triggered accusations from members of Congress that the department had concealed material to protect powerful figures, including Trump [3] [9]. These episodes show the DOJ made editorial or administrative choices about what to publish, and those choices drew threats of contempt and impeachment from some lawmakers [3] [9], but the reporting supplied attributes the removals to DOJ actions and explanations (e.g., victim privacy), not to an on-the-record courtroom admission by Bondi that Trump ordered removal.
4. Where the gap in the public record lies — what the supplied sources do not show
None of the provided sources contain a transcript or news account stating that, in court, Bondi testified that Trump told her to “take documents out of the Epstein files.” The materials record disputes about whether Bondi briefed Trump and about who flagged or removed Trump-related items [1] [2], and they recount public statements, memos, and internal reviews [4] [5], but do not show Bondi making the specific on-the-record claim in court that the user’s question describes. Without a cited court transcript or contemporaneous report of such testimony in the supplied set, that specific claim cannot be supported from these sources.
5. Alternative narratives and motives in the media and political coverage
Right-leaning outlets and opinion writers emphasized Bondi’s pledge to release the files and framed delays as bureaucratic; left-leaning and watchdog outlets stressed possible concealment to protect allies and called for contempt or impeachment [4] [9] [6]. Some outlets reported the White House and Bondi as having briefed Trump he was named in files [1], while others focused on DOJ explanations about redactions and victim privacy to justify edits and removals [3] [4]. These differing emphases reflect clear political stakes—oversight and transparency versus claims of victim-protection and institutional discretion—so assertions about a direct order from Trump to Bondi should be judged against available primary records, which are not present among the supplied documents.