Federal authorities and the judiciary have found themselves at the center of two headline-grabbing controversies this October, both revolving around former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the first, a Minnesota man was arrested and charged in a chilling murder-for-hire plot targeting Bondi herself. In the second, a federal judge ruled that Bondi’s handpicked acting U.S. attorneys, including Bill Essayli in California, have been unlawfully serving in their posts for months, raising deep questions about the Department of Justice’s appointment practices under her tenure.
The first story broke on October 16, 2025, when Tyler Maxon Avalos, a 29-year-old Minnesota resident, was taken into custody by federal authorities. According to Reuters and court filings reviewed by iNews, Avalos had posted a $45,000 bounty for the killing of Pam Bondi on the social media platform TikTok earlier that month. The post was as brazen as it was disturbing: it featured a photo of Bondi with a sniper-scope red dot superimposed on her forehead, and the text, “WANTED: Pam Bondi / REWARD: 45,000’DEAD OR ALIVE / (PREFERABLY DEAD).”
Below the image, Avalos allegedly added a cryptic message: “Cough cough. When they don’t serve us, then what?” Investigators noted that Avalos’s TikTok username was “Wacko” and that his profile displayed an anarchist symbol and linked to an anarchist FAQ book. The FBI moved quickly after a tipster alerted them to the post, and Avalos was arrested just days later.
Court records revealed that Avalos had a significant criminal history, including a domestic violence conviction in Florida in 2016 and a stalking conviction in Minnesota. He now faces a federal charge for transmitting a threatening communication, a serious offense under Title 18, Section 875 of the U.S. Code, which covers threats to injure another person across state lines. Avalos’s defense attorney, Daniel Gerdts, told Reuters, “no comment, except to note that [his client] is not guilty of any crime.”
A U.S. magistrate judge released Avalos from custody under a strict set of conditions: he cannot travel outside Minnesota, must submit to GPS monitoring and a curfew, continue mental health treatment, abstain from alcohol and weapons, and is barred from internet access without prior approval. The case underscores the seriousness with which federal law enforcement treats threats against public officials, especially in an era where social media platforms can amplify and accelerate dangerous rhetoric.
Pam Bondi, the target of the alleged plot, is no stranger to controversy or the national spotlight. She served as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019 before joining the Trump administration as a lawyer. Her tenure in both roles has been marked by high-profile cases and, more recently, by her involvement in contentious Justice Department personnel decisions that have now drawn federal judicial scrutiny.
Just days after Avalos’s arrest, another legal bombshell landed. On October 29, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, had been unlawfully serving in his role since July 29, 2025. The ruling, covered in detail by Law&Crime, found that Essayli’s continued service as acting U.S. attorney was not legally justified under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).
The controversy stems from a pattern seen not just in California, but also in New Jersey and Nevada. Pam Bondi, during her time as U.S. Attorney General, appointed several interim U.S. attorneys—including Alina Habba and Sigal Chattah—who, after their 120-day interim stints expired, continued to serve as acting U.S. attorneys. This was possible because Bondi and then-President Donald Trump ensured that the positions of first assistant U.S. attorney (FAUSA)—second-in-command at the office—were left vacant through firings or reassignments.
Criminal defendants in the Central District of California challenged the legality of this maneuver, arguing that Bondi had essentially written "a handbook" for circumventing Senate confirmation by simply firing the first assistant and backfilling with handpicked choices, then granting them special attorney status. Essayli’s resignation letter from his interim role, which mirrored those of Habba and Chattah, made the maneuver explicit: “I hereby resign my position as Interim United States Attorney for the Central District of California effective at 5:00 p.m. PDT today, July 29, 2025 … I look forward to continuing to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.”
Judge Seabright concluded, “Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2025.” The judge further clarified that while Essayli could continue to serve as first assistant and supervise prosecutions, he could not legally act as U.S. Attorney. The ruling did not, however, throw out any indictments as a remedy.
In a detailed explanation, Judge Seabright wrote that the FVRA is triggered only by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a PAS officer (a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate), and that Essayli was not the FAUSA when his predecessor resigned. Additionally, his appointment as a special attorney could not lawfully make him acting U.S. attorney because the FVRA’s exclusivity provisions foreclosed that theory.
Despite the ruling, Essayli appeared defiant, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing. I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California. It’s an honor and privilege to serve President Trump and Attorney General Bondi, and I look forward to advancing their agenda…”
The legal challenges to Bondi’s DOJ appointments are not over. The ruling against Essayli follows similar decisions in New Jersey and Nevada, and with appeals pending in the 3rd and 9th Circuits, the issue may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The central question: Can the executive branch sidestep the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming top federal prosecutors by exploiting statutory loopholes?
These two stories—one a chilling reminder of the real-world dangers faced by public officials, the other a high-stakes battle over the limits of executive power—intersect at the figure of Pam Bondi. As legal proceedings continue on both fronts, federal authorities and the judiciary are left to grapple with the implications for justice, security, and the rule of law.
For now, the cases serve as a stark warning: whether threats come from individuals on social media or from questionable maneuvers at the highest levels of government, the integrity of the nation’s legal institutions remains under intense scrutiny.