分析： 艾伦·布莱克
更新时间： 2026年2月11日，美国东部时间下午4:34
发布时间： 2026年2月11日，美国东部时间下午3:33
周三，司法部长帕姆·邦迪在众议院司法委员会面前的证词，是我们迄今为止见过的特朗普内阁官员中最紧张、最具对抗性的证词之一。
邦迪出席听证会时，政府和司法部正面临一系列问题，包括他们对杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）案件档案的处理、新报道的对六名民主党议员的起诉失败，以及上月联邦官员在明尼阿波利斯枪杀两名抗议者的事件。
以下是本次听证会的一些启示：
1. 她采取了充满对抗性但也有风险的爱泼斯坦策略
听证会初期，华盛顿州民主党众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（Pramila Jayapal）请在场的爱泼斯坦幸存者起立，并就一个棘手问题向邦迪发起质疑。
她要求邦迪（刚刚就虐待幸存者道歉）也为司法部未能对幸存者的敏感个人信息进行编辑而道歉。
邦迪停顿片刻，似乎在考虑下一步行动。但她没有道歉，反而转而指责她的前任司法部长梅里克·加兰（Merrick Garland）。双方的交流迅速演变为争吵和人身攻击。
这一幕颇具警示意义：司法部已承认存在这些编辑失误，而幸存者是最值得同情的群体。但邦迪却选择了对抗而非忏悔。
听证会的其余部分也延续了这种对抗性。邦迪全程极具攻击性，想尽办法回避民主党人和共和党众议员托马斯·马西（Thomas Massie）关于爱泼斯坦事件的提问，这种做法在政治上可能并不明智。
她还拒绝民主党人反复要求她回应身后的幸存者（他们表示司法部一直忽视他们），这一行为让场面显得十分尴尬。
她称一名民主党人为“过气的失败者律师”，斥责另一名议员攻击“美国历史上最伟大的总统”特朗普。
当邦迪声称“没有证据表明唐纳德·特朗普犯罪”时，来自加利福尼亚州的民主党众议员泰德·刘（Ted Lieu）指出，爱泼斯坦档案中一条未经证实的关于特朗普的线索（他称这算作证据），并指控邦迪作伪证，要求她辞职。邦迪则建议该议员应关注“加州的恐怖犯罪”。
当另一名议员再次敦促她考虑附近的幸存者时，她没有回应，反而指向倒计时时钟说：“你的时间到了。”
她多次打断提问者，以至于共和党司法委员会主席吉姆·乔丹（Jim Jordan）不得不反复提醒她，时间属于议员，而非她本人。
这似乎表明邦迪在向“唯一的观众”——特朗普——献殷勤，但这可能是以取悦真正希望得到答案的美国公众为代价。
毕竟，最近的一项民调显示，美国人对政府处理爱泼斯坦案件的不满比例约为3:1。
这种对抗性对邦迪而言或许司空见惯，但却显得不合时宜，仿佛她没有认真对待这一严肃问题。
如今，许多特朗普官员似乎在“服从他的命令”和“做看起来明智的事”之间抉择，邦迪周三的表现就是一个典型例子。
2. 马西在关键交锋中取得了进展
但邦迪不能只针对民主党人——毕竟，一些共和党人也对她和她的部门施压。
其中，与主导爱泼斯坦档案调查的马西的交锋，在实际揭露政府问题方面尤为突出。
这位肯塔基州议员指出了另一个重大编辑问题：政府似乎错误地编辑了一些被执法部门一度怀疑与爱泼斯坦有犯罪关联的男性。马西和来自加利福尼亚州的民主党众议员罗·卡纳（Ro Khanna）列举了其中六人，包括亿万富翁商业巨头莱斯·韦克斯纳（Les Wexner）。
（韦克斯纳尚未被指控犯罪，其代表称他“与执法部门合作，并被告知他‘在任何方面都不是同谋或目标’”。）
邦迪像政府其他官员一样辩称，韦克斯纳的名字在文件其他地方出现过。但马西称这是转移话题——司法部正是在他与爱泼斯坦犯罪关联的地方故意编辑了他的名字。
邦迪随后声称，政府在“40分钟内”恢复了韦克斯纳的名字，但马西准确指出，这是在他和卡纳指出问题之后才发生的。
“在我当场抓包后40分钟内，”马西澄清道。
邦迪随后称马西是“失败的政客”和“伪君子”。
尽管民主党人试图强调政府在这一问题上的失误，但邦迪常常通过回避问题和陷入争吵来混淆视听。
马西的这次交锋实际上取得了效果。
3. 紧张气氛中的片刻缓和
有那么一瞬间，议员们想起了一个越来越困扰他们所有人的问题——这带来了罕见的真正和解时刻。
来自加利福尼亚州的民主党众议员埃里克·斯瓦尔韦尔（Eric Swalwell）（他经常与亲特朗普的证人发生争执）转而讲述了他和家人面临的威胁。在详细说明后，他问邦迪这些威胁是否仍在调查中。
“我只是请求你的帮助来保护生命，因为我们现在所处的环境中生命受到威胁，”斯瓦尔韦尔说。
邦迪回应道：“他们正在调查，我可以提供更多细节。你们任何人都不应该受到威胁，你们的孩子和家人都不应该受到威胁，我会与你们合作。”
这段对话凸显了一个被忽视的大问题——议员们通常不愿谈论这个问题，但它显然影响了两党。这一次，双方在目标上达成了罕见的统一。
当然，两党在谁该为政治暴力负责的问题上也存在激烈分歧，这一问题在听证会的另一环节也被提及。
4. 听证会暴露了政府的诸多问题
通常情况下，听证会会由委员会中证人的盟友引导，使其朝着更有利的方向发展，聚焦于对他们有利的问题。
但这次听证会中，这类问题却难以找到。
一些共和党人试图聚焦于拜登政府传票传唤共和党国会议员通话记录（共和党人将此比作“监视”他们）。
然而，听证会召开的前一天，我们得知特朗普政府对六名国会民主党人采取了更激进的行动——实际上试图起诉他们但失败了。这些人正是特朗普暗示应被起诉的对象。
邦迪在开场陈述中强调“保护民众安全”，引用了犯罪率显著下降的数据。乔丹在开场陈述中则聚焦于驱逐政策。
但这些议题似乎都已偏离政府的核心问题。上午早些时候发布的一项NBC新闻民调显示，特朗普在移民问题上的不支持率飙升至60%。此外，政府仍在处理其特工在明尼阿波利斯枪杀亚历克斯·普雷蒂（Alex Pretti）和蕾妮·古德（Renee Good）后产生的后果，这些事件也成为政府的重大负担。
这次听证会本应需要一场强有力的表现，邦迪可以直接回应这些问题并试图挽回局面。但她却没有这样做，而是选择“求生”。
5. 邦迪的几次反击未能奏效
邦迪一如既往地准备充分，试图回击议员们的质疑。但这种做法的弊端是，有时可能会适得其反。
听证会初期，邦迪令人费解地建议委员会中的民主党人应关注特朗普任内股市的上涨：
“道琼斯指数现已超过50,000点，标准普尔接近7,000点，纳斯达克屡创新高，美国人的401(k)养老金和退休储蓄蓬勃发展，”邦迪说，“这才是我们应该讨论的话题。”
民主党人迅速指出，股市通常不属于司法委员会的管辖范围。
听证会后期，她攻击来自佛蒙特州的民主党众议员贝卡·巴林特（Becca Balint）投票反对一项涉及反犹主义的决议。
但巴林特实际上是大屠杀幸存者的孙女。
巴林特在大声质问邦迪时指出了这一点，并恳求道：“你认真的吗？”然后愤然离开了听证会。
本文已根据最新报道更新。
5 takeaways from Pam Bondi’s fiery testimony
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Updated Feb 11, 2026, 4:34 PM ET
PUBLISHED Feb 11, 2026, 3:33 PM ET
Attorney General [Pam Bondi’s testimony] in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday was some of the tensest and most combative testimony we’ve seen to date from a Trump Cabinet official.
Bondi came into the hearing with the administration and DOJ facing a series of problems, including their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the newly reported failed indictments of six Democratic lawmakers, and the killing of two protesters by federal officers in Minneapolis last month.
Below are some takeaways from the hearing:
- She had a combative — but dicey — Epstein strategy
Early in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington asked Epstein survivors in the audience to stand up. And she challenged Bondi on a difficult issue.
She asked Bondi, who had just apologized to the survivors for the abuse they suffered, to also apologize to them for the Justice Department’s [failures to redact survivors’ sensitive personal information].
Bondi paused, as if considering her next move. Then, rather than apologize, she launched into a deflection about her predecessor as attorney general, Merrick Garland. The exchange quickly devolved into arguments and personal attacks.
It was a telling moment. The Justice Department has acknowledged these redaction failures. And the survivors are some of the most sympathetic figures imaginable. But Bondi decided the moment called for combativeness, not contrition.
The rest of the hearing flowed from there. Bondi was extremely combative throughout, doing whatever she could to avoid Democrats’ and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie’s questions about Epstein — in ways that might seem politically unwise.
She also refused Democrats’ repeated entreaties to address the survivors seated behind her — survivors who said DOJ had ignored them — which made for some compelling visuals.
She called a Democrat a “[washed up, loser lawyer.]” She berated another for attacking “the greatest president in American history,” Trump.
When Bondi claimed there was “no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime,” Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California pointed to an unsubstantiated tip about Trump from the Epstein files — something he said counts as evidence — and accused Bondi of lying under oath and called for her to resign. Bondi suggested the lawmaker should focus on “horrific crimes in California” instead.
And when another lawmaker urged her again to consider the survivors sitting nearby, rather than responding she pointed to the expired clock, saying, “Your time is up.”
She talked over her interrogators so much that Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan had to repeatedly remind her that the time belonged to the members, not her.
It seemed Bondi was playing to the “audience of one” — Trump. But that came potentially at the expense of appealing to an American public that really does want answers.
A recent poll, after all, showed Americans [disapprove about 3-to-1] of the administration’s handling of the Epstein files.
The combativeness was normal for Bondi, but it risked looking out of place and like she wasn’t taking a serious issue seriously.
So many Trump officials right now seem to be choosing between doing his bidding and doing what might otherwise seem wise. And Bondi’s performance Wednesday was a case in point.
- Massie drew some blood in a key exchange
But Bondi couldn’t just go after Democrats. After all, some Republicans have pressed her and her department on this issue.
And an exchange with Massie, the lead Republican behind the Epstein files effort, stood out when it came to actually pinning down the administration.
The Kentuckian pointed to another big redactions issue: How the administration appeared to [errantly redact some men] whom law enforcement at one point appeared to suspect of criminal activity with Epstein. Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have cited six of them, including billionaire business magnate Les Wexner.
(Wexner has not been accused of a crime, and [a representative has said] he cooperated with law enforcement and was told he “was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect.”)
Bondi noted, as the administration has, that Wexner’s name appeared elsewhere in the documents. But Massie referred to that as a red herring — that the Justice Department happened to redact his name specifically where it was linked to possible crimes.
Bondi then claimed he administration un-redacted Wexner’s name “within 40 minutes.” But Massie accurately noted that only came after he and Khanna had called it out.
“Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed,” Massie clarified.
Bondi went on to call Massie a “failed politician” and a “hypocrite.”
While Democrats tried to highlight the administration’s missteps on this issue, Bondi was often able to muddy the waters by avoiding the question and getting into shouting matches.
Massie’s exchange actually landed.
- A reprieve from the nastiness
For a brief moment, the lawmakers were reminded of an issue that increasingly inflicts them all. And it brought about a rare [moment of real comity].
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, who has often tussled with Trump-allied witnesses, instead focused on threats that he and his family have faced. After detailing them, he asked Bondi if they were still being investigated.
“I’m just asking for your help to protect life, because life is at risk with the environment we’re in right now,” Swalwell said.
Bondi responded: “They are being looked into, and I can give you more details on those. None of you should be threatened ever. None of your children should be threatened. None of your families should be threatened, and I will work with you.”
The exchange highlighted a sleeping giant of an issue — and one that lawmakers are often reluctant to talk about. But it’s an issue that clearly impacts both sides of the aisle. And for once there was some unity in purpose.
Of course, the two sides have also disagreed vehemently about who is more to blame for political violence — an issue that also came up at another point in the hearing.
- The hearing pointed to the administration’s many problems.
The way these hearings usually work is that the witnesses’ allies on the committee try to guide things in a more favorable direction. So they’ll focus on issues that play to their strengths.
But those issues were hard to come by.
Some Republicans tried to focus on the Biden Justice Department having subpoenaed the call logs of congressional Republicans — which the GOP has compared to “spying” on them.
But the hearing literally came a day after we learned the Trump DOJ went a whole lot further with six congressional Democrats — actually [trying and failing to indict them]. These people were, yet again, people Trump suggested deserved to be prosecuted.
Bondi focused in her opening remarks on the idea of keeping people safe, citing significant [declines in crime numbers]. And Jordan in his opening statement focused on deportations.
But those too are issue that seem to have gotten away from the administration. An [NBC News poll] released earlier in the morning showed Trump’s disapproval on immigration spiking to 60%. And the administration is still dealing with the fallout from its agents having shot and killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis — situations which have also emerged as major liabilities for the administration.
It was the kind of hearing that could seemingly have used a strong performance, where Bondi directly addressed the issues at hand and tried to right the ship.
But Bondi didn’t come to answer tough questions. She came to survive the hearing.
- A couple Bondi volleys didn’t land
Bondi, as she has before, came loaded for bear to hit back at lawmakers.
But the downside of that approach is that sometimes you can miss.
Early in the hearing, Bondi rather puzzlingly suggested Democrats on the committee should instead focus on how much the stock market has surged under Trump.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, the S&P at almost 7,000, and the NASDAQ smashing records, Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming,” Bondi said. “That’s what we should be talking about.”
The stock market is not usually the purview of the Judiciary Committee, which a Democrat quickly pointed out.
Later in the hearing, she attacked Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont for having voted against [a resolution involving antisemitism].
But Balint is actually the granddaughter of someone who died in the Holocaust.
Balint pointed that out while shouting at Bondi and imploring her, “Are you serious?” Then Balint stormed out of the hearing.
This article has been updated with additional reporting.
