Pam Bondi Couldn’t Possibly Succeed

Our take

Pam Bondi's tenure as attorney general of the United States was marked by controversy and culminated in an abrupt dismissal that underscored the volatility of the Trump administration. After 421 days in office, Bondi was let go via a social media announcement from Donald Trump, who praised her as a “Great American Patriot and a loyal friend” while cryptically hinting at a “much needed and important new job” in the private sector. This unconventional transition reflects the blurred lines between public service and private interests under Trump’s leadership. Bondi's time in office exemplified the precarious nature of the attorney general role during this administration. Following the firing of Jeff Sessions, who fell out of favor for adhering to procedural norms, Trump sought a loyalist who would prioritize his directives over the Justice Department's independence. Bondi fit this mold, openly declaring her allegiance to Trump and pursuing investigations against his political adversaries, despite the legal challenges of substantiating such cases. As Bondi faced mounting pressure and repeated failures in court, it became evident that the expectations placed on her were unrealistic. Trump’s quest for an attorney general capable of delivering convictions against his enemies would likely continue, as his administration's history suggests that loyalty often supersedes capability in this high-stakes position. Ultimately, Bondi's legacy serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of navigating the intersection of loyalty and justice in a politically charged landscape.

Pam Bondi’s 421 days as attorney general of the United States came to an end in the only way they could have: with her being fired ignominiously via a social-media post. Donald Trump announced that Bondi, though a “Great American Patriot and a loyal friend,” will be “transitioning to a much needed and important new job” that, despite its great importance, remains a secret. Also, her new job will be in the private sector, which makes it a strange thing for a president to be determining—or at least this would be strange if the administration still observed traditional boundaries between public and private, which it does not.

The attorney-general position under Trump has become a short-term gig not unlike the drummer in This Is Spinal Tap. Back in 2017, Trump chose his first nominee, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, specifically for his loyalty—Sessions was the first senator to endorse his campaign. But Sessions disappointed his boss by recusing himself from the Russia investigation and generally following department procedure, leading to his termination.

[From the March 2026 issue: What happened to Pam Bondi?]

Trump replaced Sessions with Bill Barr, who had auditioned for the job by submitting a memo attacking Robert Mueller’s investigation. Barr faithfully upheld Trump’s priorities, but the two men did occasionally find themselves at odds. Barr maintained at least the appearance of rule-following, and complained privately that Trump’s insistence on ordering him in public to do his bidding undermined the department’s credibility. Barr left after enraging Trump by stating that he could not find voter fraud at a scale large enough to have flipped the 2020 election result.

When his second term began, Trump sought out an attorney general whose loyalty would not waver under even the most trying circumstances. Bondi did not bother pretending to uphold the Justice Department’s independence. She announced to the staff upon taking office, “We are so proud to work at the directive of Donald Trump.”

Bondi faithfully echoed Trump’s messaging, calling him “the greatest president in the history of our country” and scolding Democrats in Congress two months ago for investigating his administration when the Dow Jones Industrial Average had topped 50,000. (It is currently at 46,000.)

Most important, Bondi investigated and brought charges against seemingly anybody Trump wanted her to. At minimum, Bondi tried to investigate a long list of Trump targets, and if she refused any of his demands, no evidence of doing so has made its way to the public. Her problem turned out to be that it remains very difficult to convict Americans of a crime they did not commit, even more so when those targets have competent lawyers. And so, as Bondi kept bringing the cases Trump ordered up, she kept losing them, which made Trump angrier and more determined to compel Bondi to bring flimsy charges against his enemies.

[Paul Rosenzweig: What role does ‘wrath’ play in American justice?]

Trump reportedly wishes to replace Bondi with Lee Zeldin, his administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, whom Trump is said to currently admire because he wins his cases. The difference, of course, is that it is far easier to win an environmental challenge, especially given the decades of groundwork the conservative movement has invested in weakening environmental law and confirming friendly judges, than it is to manufacture a criminal case out of thin air.

The president apparently believes that Bondi is failing to lock up his enemies because she isn’t smart enough. He will eventually discover that Zeldin, or whoever replaces Bondi, also lacks the power to persuade juries to convict Trump’s enemies of imaginary crimes. And so the next attorney general will also eventually transition to a new job at the Shield of the Americas or a farm somewhere upstate, where they can run and play.

Tagged with

#public land-grant university