In a week marked by legal showdowns and political controversy, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi finds herself at the center of two high-profile Justice Department actions—each igniting fierce debate over the rule of law, federal authority, and the boundaries of executive power in America.
On August 25, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to dismiss a headline-grabbing civil lawsuit filed by several members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group whose leaders were convicted and later pardoned for their roles in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. According to CBS News, the suit, spearheaded by Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Domenic Pezzola, and others, seeks over $100 million in compensation for what they call “egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.”
The Proud Boys’ complaint alleges a laundry list of government misconduct: evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and even the placement of spies to report on trial strategy. The group claims their Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that their prosecution amounted to a malicious campaign to silence Trump supporters. They further argue they endured cruel jail conditions and cite President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardon of Capitol riot defendants, which, in their words, “ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and is a process of national reconciliation.”
The DOJ, in its August 25 filing, countered that the Proud Boys failed to exhaust all other legal remedies before bringing suit and asserted sovereign immunity against the claims. The Department also argued the plaintiffs hadn’t demonstrated that their prosecution was “malicious” or that their constitutional rights had been violated. Notably, the DOJ’s motion did not address whether the original jury verdicts were fair—a silence that only fueled further speculation and suspicion among the group’s supporters.
Following the DOJ’s motion, Proud Boys members took to social media, calling for Bondi’s resignation. In a statement to CBS, the defendants’ attorney said, “Motions to dismiss are a common reaction to a civil complaint, and we anticipated that the attorney the government assigned to the case would make such a motion. We are confident that the Court will see that the Federal government’s outrageous treatment of my clients justifies allowing the suit to continue.” Isaac Thomas, a Michigan Jan. 6 defendant pardoned by Trump, added, “Unfortunately, Pam Bondi’s DOJ seems to be advocating for the same things that the Biden regime was advocating for. A long time ago, I joined the call of Trump supporters saying that Pam Bondi needs to step down.”
Mark McCoskey, a lawyer working to secure compensation for Jan. 6 defendants, voiced his own disappointment: he fears the DOJ’s motion could jeopardize legal challenges by “hundreds” of pardoned rioters. For now, the DOJ has declined to comment further while awaiting the court’s decision.
But the Proud Boys lawsuit is only half the story. On September 2, 2025, Bondi’s DOJ filed a new complaint in the Southern District of Illinois, targeting a law signed by Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker that extends in-state tuition rates and state scholarships to undocumented students. As reported by Fox News Digital and Spectrum News, the Justice Department’s suit names Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and the boards of trustees of state universities as defendants, seeking to block the law’s enforcement and bring Illinois “into compliance with federal requirements.”
The DOJ’s core argument? These laws “unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates or scholarships,” according to the complaint. U.S. Attorney Steven D. Weinhoeft for the Southern District of Illinois didn’t mince words, declaring, “Illinois has an apparent desire to win a ‘race to the bottom’ as the country’s leading sanctuary state.” He continued, “Illinois’ misguided approach mandating in-state tuition, scholarships, and financial aid to illegal aliens plainly violates federal law. This policy treats illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states and incentivizes even more illegal immigration, all on the taxpayer’s dime. Illinois citizens deserve better.”
Attorney General Bondi echoed this stance, stating, “This Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens — Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.” The DOJ’s legal challenge follows two executive orders signed by President Trump, which aim to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.
Illinois officials, meanwhile, have pushed back against the federal suit. A spokesperson for Governor Pritzker’s office told Fox News Digital, “This is yet another blatant attempt to strip Illinoisans of resources and opportunities. While the Trump Administration strips away federal resources from all Americans, Illinois provides consistent and inclusive educational pathways for all students – including immigrants and first-generation students – to access support and contribute to our state. All Illinoisans deserve a fair shot to obtain an education and our programs and policies are consistent with federal laws.”
The new law, signed by Pritzker in August, opens student financial aid to all Illinois residents, regardless of immigration status, and is designed to create “equitable eligibility for financial aid and benefits.” The bill specifically allows students who are not eligible for federal financial aid—including transgender students disqualified for failing to register for selective service and noncitizen students lacking lawful permanent residence—to receive state financial aid. The move has become a flashpoint for parents in Illinois, some of whom are deeply critical of the measure. Michelle Cunney, a local Parents’ Rights in Education chapter leader, called the law a “nightmare,” telling Fox News Digital, “It’s terrifying that not only are we having to pay for this, as you know, tax-paying citizens … But also, as parents, not knowing how it will really truly end up affecting our children and their education.” She added, “We know that the children who are not here legally will get … more of a chance and an opportunity to get scholarships and everything than our children, because to Pritzker, and so many others, we are not important. We are not anything other than money.”
While the Illinois attorney general’s office has said it is reviewing the case, the legal battle is already drawing national attention and stoking fierce debate over immigration, education, and federalism.
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of mounting criticism of Attorney General Bondi’s tenure. According to a September 2, 2025, analysis by Common Cause, Bondi has repeatedly prioritized loyalty to Donald Trump over legal and ethical standards. The piece traces her relationship with Trump back to 2013, when, as Florida’s attorney general, she declined to investigate fraud claims against Trump University after receiving a $25,000 donation from Trump. The article notes that Bondi later joined Trump’s impeachment defense team, echoed his unfounded claims of election fraud, and, as Attorney General, has “allowed the White House to dictate sensitive legal decisions, fired whistleblowers who crossed Trump’s line, and scrapped entire divisions meant to keep the government accountable.”
The most recent and controversial example cited by Common Cause: Bondi’s unprecedented move to put the head of the DEA in charge of Washington, D.C.’s police force—a federal takeover that occurred despite D.C. recording its lowest violent crime rate in 30 years, and which critics see as a test run for further federal crackdowns in other cities.
Bondi’s defenders argue that she is simply enforcing the law and restoring order, while critics say she has turned the Justice Department into a political weapon. As the courts weigh the Proud Boys’ claims and the Illinois tuition lawsuit, the nation watches closely to see just how far the boundaries of federal power—and personal loyalty—will be pushed in the months ahead.
