The DOJ Tracked What Congress Searched in the Epstein Files

Bondi brought a printout of a lawmaker's search history to a hearing. The Speaker of the House said it wasn't appropriate. Both parties agree: this is a problem.

TL;DR: On February 11, 2026, photos from Attorney General Pam Bondi's House Judiciary Committee hearing showed she had a document labeled "Jayapal Pramila Search History", a printout of exactly which Epstein files a congresswoman had searched on DOJ computers. The Justice Department says it "logs all searches" to protect victim information. Both Democrats and Republicans are calling it surveillance of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson called it inappropriate. Rep. Raskin has asked the Inspector General to investigate.

The Binder

It was a photographer who caught it. During Bondi's oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, Reuters and AFP cameras captured a page in the Attorney General's open binder. The heading: "Jayapal Pramila Search History" [1].

Below it: a list of at least eight Epstein-related files that Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) had searched while reviewing unredacted documents at the DOJ's facility. Specific file numbers. Descriptions of contents [1].

Jayapal confirmed to NPR that the searches listed on the page matched the ones she'd actually made [2].

"Bondi showed up today with a burn book that held a printed search history of exactly what emails I searched," Jayapal said. "It is totally inappropriate and against the separations of powers for the DOJ to surveil us as we search the Epstein files" [1].

The DOJ had given Congress access to the less-redacted Epstein files earlier that week. Lawmakers could visit a DOJ annex, log in with individual credentials on department-owned computers, and search the records. What they apparently didn't know: the DOJ was tracking every query [3].

How the Tracking Worked

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) described the setup: "There is someone or two people from the DOJ monitoring you as you sit on those computers." A tech person managed logins for each member. Every document opened, every search made, logged [3].

Mace confirmed the DOJ was "tracking all of the documents that members of Congress open" [3].

Rep. Raskin (D-MD) described members being required to use DOJ-owned computers "while DOJ staffers look over our shoulders" [4].

The DOJ's own letter to Congress had stated it "will keep a log of the dates and times of all members' reviews" [3]. But there's a gap between logging when someone visits and producing a printout of exactly which documents they searched, then handing that printout to the Attorney General before an oversight hearing.

Jayapal raised the obvious question: "Is this the whole reason they opened up [the files] to us two days early? So they could essentially surveil members to see what we were going to ask her about?" [1].

The DOJ Says It's for "Victim Protection"

A Justice Department spokesman gave Newsweek this statement: "DOJ has extended Congress the opportunity to review unredacted documents in the Epstein files. As a part of that review, DOJ logs all searches made on its systems to protect against the release of victim information" [5].

That's the entire justification. Log every search a member of Congress makes. Package the results by lawmaker name. Hand the report to the AG before an oversight hearing where that lawmaker will be asking questions.

Victim protection.

The problem isn't that the DOJ has audit logs on its computer systems. Every enterprise system has audit logs. The problem is that the AG walked into a hearing with an opposition lawmaker's search history in her binder, and apparently used it to prepare for questioning. That's not protecting victims. That's preparing to neutralize congressional oversight.

Both Sides Agree: This Is Wrong

What makes this unusual is the bipartisan outrage.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, typically in lockstep with the Trump administration, called it inappropriate: "I don't think it's appropriate for anybody to be tracking that. Members should obviously have the right to peruse those at their own speed and with their own discretion" [6].

Johnson guessed it was an "oversight" [6]. An interesting word choice for an Attorney General who showed up to a hearing with a named, printed report in her binder.

Raskin didn't buy the accident theory. He requested an Inspector General investigation into what he called "spying" on members of Congress, characterizing it as "intrusion into Congress's oversight processes." His statement: "DOJ must immediately cease tracking any Members' searches" [4].

Raskin added that he had "reason to believe that it was happening to everyone", not just Jayapal [2].

Among the files Jayapal had searched: an email exchange between Epstein and an Emirati sultan, and an "Epstein victim list" email naming dozens of people [1]. Exactly the kind of material a lawmaker would review before an oversight hearing. Exactly the kind of material the DOJ would want to know a lawmaker planned to raise.

The Pattern

This isn't happening in a vacuum. The same administration that's tracking Congress members' document searches is also:

The DOJ logging a lawmaker's document searches and delivering the results to the AG before a hearing is a data point, not an anomaly. When an administration monitors what citizens post online, what protesters look like, and what Congress members read, that's surveillance infrastructure, not a one-off mistake.

Why This Matters Beyond Epstein

Strip away the Epstein controversy for a second. The core question is simpler and scarier:

Can the executive branch monitor how the legislative branch conducts oversight?

If the DOJ can log and package what members of Congress search during document reviews, that knowledge can be weaponized. It tells the AG what lines of questioning to expect. It reveals what a lawmaker knows, and what they don't. It creates a chilling effect: would you search for sensitive documents if you knew the person you're about to question was reading your search history?

That's the point. Surveillance doesn't have to punish you to work. It just has to make you think twice.

What Happens Next

Jayapal is organizing a letter demanding the DOJ stop tracking lawmakers' searches and provide a "full accounting" of how the search history data was used [2]. Raskin has formally asked the Inspector General to investigate [4]. Johnson's public criticism puts the Speaker on record against the practice.

The DOJ hasn't responded to multiple media requests for comment beyond its one-line statement about "victim protection" [3][5].

Whether any of this changes anything depends on whether Congress treats this as a real constitutional confrontation or lets it fade into the next news cycle. The executive branch just showed it can, and will, monitor how Congress does its job. The only question is whether Congress cares enough to stop it.

References

  1. CBS News — Bondi had list of a Democratic lawmaker's Epstein files "search history" during Capitol Hill hearing (February 11, 2026)
  2. TIME — DOJ Accused of Surveilling Lawmakers' Epstein Files Searches (February 12, 2026)
  3. NBC News — Members of Congress demand DOJ stop tracking lawmakers' Epstein files searches (February 12, 2026)
  4. PBS NewsHour — Raskin accuses Justice Department of 'spying' on lawmakers reviewing Epstein files (February 12, 2026)
  5. Newsweek — Epstein Files: DOJ Responds to Tracking Lawmakers' Searches of Unredacted Documents (February 12, 2026)
  6. ABC News — Speaker Johnson calls DOJ surveillance of members reviewing unredacted Epstein files not 'appropriate' (February 12, 2026)
  7. Boing Boing — DHS is stalking Reddit users online (February 10, 2026)
  8. Brennan Center — The Government's Growing Trove of Social Media Data (2026)
  9. Techdirt — ICE, CBP Knew Facial Recognition App Couldn't Do What DHS Says It Could, Deployed It Anyway (February 12, 2026)
  10. Brookings — Privacy under siege: DOGE's one big, beautiful database (June 25, 2025)