In 2013, as the Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi was presented with a choice: Should she collaborate with investigations from other state lawyers into Trump University? The institution was under scrutiny because students alleged they were charged up to $35,000 for what critics called spurious business classes. Despite being bombarded by grievances from students citing exploitation, oddly, both Bondi and Kamala Harris, serving as the California Attorney General at that time, exempted themselves from joining the probe into the matter. Their decision, they decided, was completely uninfluenced by the political donations they received from Donald Trump. Both have, since then, walked on diametrically opposite political paths.
Fast forwarding to recent history, Harris bitterly opposed Trump during both the 2020 and 2024 elections. She attempted to paint a disquieting picture of Trump, positioning him as a business charlatan and a menace to democracy. Despite her efforts, Trump comfortably secured re-election earlier this month. Bondi, on the other hand, utilized the last decade establishing a reputation as one of Trump’s avid defenders while aggressively attacking his detractors.
The latest unfolding of events has Bondi nominated for the role of President-elect Trump’s attorney general, awaiting confirmation by the Senate. Bondi has allegedly leveraged her media appearances to defend Trump, especially after Trump was charged in Georgia with accusations of manipulating the 2020 election results. Bondi tried to discredit the prosecutors charging Trump with criminal procedures by promoting a dubious deep state conspiracy theory, insinuating that DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents were secretly involved in efforts to destabilize Trump.
Bondi unequivocally stated that, no longer concealed in obscurity, these individuals needed probing. However, she’s presented no convincing proof for the same. The Justice Department’s reaction to Bondi as the prime candidate for attorney general has been highly heterogeneous. Unsurprisingly, Trump proposed Bondi for the position shortly after Rep. Matt Gaetz, consistently denying allegations of illegal sexual conduct, recused himself from the selection process.
For many DOJ officials, Bondi appears to be a more agreeable choice compared to Gaetz, due mainly to her extensive past experience as a local prosecutor and Florida attorney general. Simultaneously, some perceive her loyalty towards Trump as a potential risk, fearing she might willingly drive Trump’s crusade against his adversaries.
Looking back, Trump’s previous attorney general, William Barr, was markedly dismissive of Trump’s claims regarding fraudulent activity during the 2020 elections. He refrained from instigating investigations into these allegations via the Justice Department, as he found the claims unsupported by substantial evidence. With the public declaration that no proof of systemic fraud existed, Barr stepped down from his position.
When Trump then attempted to appoint Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ official who unreasonably endorsed Trump’s baseless fraud allegations during the 2020 elections, as the acting attorney general, leading figures from the DOJ were quick to express their animosity. The entire scenario climaxed when Trump’s supporters invaded the U.S. Capitol with the intention of resisting the confirmation of his election defeat merely three days later.
Contrarily, Bondi reinforced Trump’s fraudulent conjectures. She made trips to Philadelphia, where she fervently held press conferences spreading unwarranted theories about rampant ballot fraud. Simultaneously, she insisted that the election had been unlawfully wrested from Trump. Her bias towards Trump was also evident when she served as a defense attorney amidst his initial impeachment process, arguing that Trump was the subject of an unjust investigation.
At present, Bondi is associated with the Ballard Partners’ lobbying firm, holding a principal role. She leads the company’s corporate regulatory compliance practice. Interestingly, a handful of attorneys from Florida have stepped forward to vouch for Bondi’s ethical approach during her tenure as the state attorney general.
All eyes now lay on Bondi. Will she stay true to her publicly announced commitment that prosecutors themselves will be subject to prosecution? Plus, if she refuses to prosecute prosecutors solely due to political motives, will that decision trigger her expulsion at the hands of Trump, resembling the fate of her predecessors? These questions hang thick in the air as anticipation builds around the future course of events.