Democrats in both chambers of Congress are asking the Justice Department to explain what safeguards are in place to ensure Attorney General Pam Bondi is not influencing matters that involve clients represented by her brother, attorney Brad Bondi.
In a letter led by Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Dave Min—both of California—11 Democrats say a series of DOJ actions has created the appearance that the department is intervening in ways that could benefit Brad Bondi’s clients. They argue that, taken together, the pattern is troubling enough to warrant documentation, internal communications, and a clear accounting of the “firewalls” meant to prevent conflicts of interest.
“Viewed collectively, these actions raise significant broader ethical concerns,” the lawmakers wrote. “The repetition and timing of these interventions suggest coordinated decision-making rather than routine prosecutorial discretion.”
Why It Matters
Federal ethics rules are designed to prevent officials from taking actions that could benefit close family members—especially in circumstances where a relative’s professional work could intersect with government decision-making. In situations involving potential conflicts, senior officials are generally expected to recuse themselves and ensure appropriate screening procedures are in place. The lawmakers say they want confirmation that those requirements were followed, and that the DOJ’s credibility has not been compromised.
What To Know
Brad Bondi is a partner at Paul Hastings and co-chairs the firm’s investigations and white collar defense practice. Since Pam Bondi became attorney general under President Donald Trump, the lawmakers allege, the DOJ has taken “several unusual actions that appear to benefit Mr. Bondi,” pointing to multiple episodes they say raise questions about independence and oversight.
One of the most recent examples cited occurred in August 2025, in litigation involving Cruise Lines International Association, which filed suit against the Hawai‘i Department of Taxation and the State of Hawai’i. Bondi represented one of the plaintiffs, and the DOJ intervened in a manner the lawmakers describe as effectively supporting that client—an action they say could influence how the case proceeds.
The letter also references two other matters from August in which prosecutors dropped charges that had been brought under the Biden administration. In Missouri, federal prosecutors voluntarily dismissed wire fraud charges against property developer Sid Chakraverty. In Florida, fraud charges against former Republican lawmaker Carolina Amesty were also dropped.
Separately, the Democrats point to a presidential pardon granted earlier this year to one of Brad Bondi’s clients, Trevor Milton. Milton, a Utah billionaire, had been convicted of federal securities fraud and wire charges; the pardon meant he avoided a four-year prison sentence.
“Even when Mr. Bondi loses, he apparently wins,” the lawmakers wrote, arguing that the collection of actions—considered together—raises “significant broader ethical concerns.”
The letter asks whether DOJ policies and federal regulations—including provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations and guidance in the department’s Justice Manual—were properly followed. While the DOJ has previously said Pam Bondi’s relationship with her brother does not affect departmental decisions in these matters, the lawmakers are seeking records they believe could clarify what actually happened behind the scenes.
Among their requests: documents and communications connected to the cited cases, any communications linking Pam Bondi and Brad Bondi related to those matters, and details on what screening procedures were implemented to ensure the attorney general did not participate in situations where the department’s impartiality “may reasonably be questioned.”
What People Are Saying
The 11 Democrats wrote to the DOJ: “Taken together with the Department’s August dismissal of several other cases involving defendants represented by Mr. Bondi, these actions call into question whether DOJ has properly implemented firewalls and screening procedures to separate Attorney General Bondi from her brother and (2) is refraining from involvement in cases where its impartiality may reasonably be questioned.”
What’s Next
The lawmakers set a deadline of January 2, 2026, for the DOJ to provide the requested documents and information.
