Members of the US Congress are calling for an investigation after discovering that the Department of Justice (DoJ) has been logging their search activities as they reviewed files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy erupted when Attorney General Pam Bondi was photographed during a House hearing holding a document that listed the search history of Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal.
The document, described by some as a “burn book”, appeared to track which files Jayapal had accessed while reviewing the unredacted Epstein materials, which were made available to legislators earlier this week under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said the tracking amounted to “an outrageous abuse of power” and announced he would ask the DoJ inspector general to open an inquiry.
The DoJ confirmed it monitors all searches made on its systems by lawmakers, saying in a statement: “DoJ has extended Congress the opportunity to review unredacted documents in the Epstein files. As part of that review, DoJ logs all searches made on its systems to protect against the release of victim information.” However, critics argue that the process—requiring members to travel to a DoJ annex, use department-owned computers, and be watched by staff—is designed for surveillance.
Raskin described the setup as “the perfect set-up for DoJ to spy on members’ review”. Bondi’s use of the search history during the hearing, which appeared to help her anticipate questions from Jayapal, was condemned as using the information “for her embarrassing polemical purposes”. Jayapal called the practice “totally inappropriate and against the separation of powers”, vowing to pursue the matter. Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican, confirmed the monitoring, calling it “creepy”.
The issue has drawn bipartisan concern. Jayapal said she discussed it with House Speaker Mike Johnson, who described the tracking as “inappropriate” if it occurred, though he stopped short of directly criticising the DoJ. The controversy raises questions about the separation of powers and the limits of executive branch oversight of legislative activities.
